„;«!* 

Il!ii!i;l' 


iiili 


■liiliii 


mffiif? 


7i 


*Jl.V 


PRINCETON,    N,    J. 


BX    5945    .B45    1859 

Bede,    Augustin. 

Letters   to   an   Episcopalian 


SAel 


LETTERS 


TO    AN 


EPISCOPALIAN, 


ON    THE 


ORIGIN,  HISTORY  AND  DOCTRINE 


OF    TUE 


BOOK  OF  COMMON-PEAYER. 


BY  A  UG  US  TIN  BEDE. 


He^ 


\r 


BALTIMORE: 
PUBLISHED  BY  KELLY,  HEDIAN  &  PIET, 

174   Baltimore   Street, 

1859. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  ye.ir  Eighteen  Hundred 
and  Fifty-Nine,  by  Kelly,  IIedian  &  Piet,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  tJie 
District  Court  of  the  State  of  Maryland. 


Kelly.  Hedi.^.n  &  Piet.  Printei 


•^  j>  *A  Aii  0  Li  0  G I G  .ii.  ^.-  . 

PREFACE. 


The  lullowing  letters  were  prepared  with  reference  to  the  case  of 
a  particular  individual,  but  it  is  believed  that  they  will  be  found 
equally  applicable  to  a  very  large  class  of  readers.  Episcopalians 
generally  regard  the  ••'  Book  of  Common-Prayer"  as  second  only  to 
the  Bible,  both  in  excellency  and  authority.  To  them,  it  is  at  once 
a  treasury  of  spiritnal  reading,  a  book  of  devotion  and  worship,  and 
a  standard  of  faith  and  doctrine.  Anj'  treatise  relating  to  a  book  so 
intimately  bound  up  with  their  religious  life,  must  at  once  awaken 
their  interest  and  inquiry.  However  great  may  be  their  veneration 
for  it,  they  will  scarcely  maintain  that  it  is  too  perfect  to  admit  of 
improvement.  However  mucli  they  may  honor  the  memory  of  those 
who  compiled  it,  they  will  not  venture  to  pronounce  them  absolutely 
infallible.  It  is  therefore  believed  that  they  will  have  too  much 
good  sense  to  put  away  from  them  a  work  which  is  designed  to 
throw  light  uiwn  these  points.  Esteeming  their  Prayer-Book  so 
highly,  they  must  also  feel  too  much  interested  in  its  origin  and 
history,  to  forego  the  opportunity  aflbrded  by  these  letters,  to  obtain 
the  only  complete  account  of  the  sources  from  which  that  book  was 
compiled,  as  well  as  of  the  means  by  which  it  was  first  brought  into 
use.  Acknowledging  it  to  be  the  authorised  exponent  of  their 
doctrinal  belief  and  of  their  ecclesiastical  polity,  they  must  feel  con- 
cerned in  any  logical  deductions  which  may  be  drawn  from  its 
creeds,  articles  of  religion,  and  other  theological  statements.  Let  it 
be  no  offence  to  say  that  many  of  them,  although  habitually  using 


IV  .  PREFACE. 

that  book,  have  never  yet  taken  the  trouble  to  subject  it  to  an  histo- 
rical and  critical  examination,  nor  even  to  compare  part  with  part, 
with  a  view  to  reduce  its  teachings  to  an  hannonious  system.  Per- 
haps they  will  not  disdain  the  assistance  of  the  following  Letters, 
in  this  long-neglected  investigation. 

Although  it  has  been  necessary,  in  some  of  the  letters,  to  use 
much  plainness  of  speech,  and  to  call  up  historical  facts  of  a  disa- 
greeable nature,  yet  the  author  has  endeavored  to  avoid  giving 
just  cause  of  offence — for  he  seeks  not  to  wound  and  exasperate, 
but  only  to  instruct  and  edify.  Although  unveiling  much  that  has 
hitherto  remained  hidden,  he  has  endeavored  to  conduct  the  dis- 
cussion with  moderation  and  charity. 

As  many  of  the  points  discussed  can  be  decided  only  by  means  of 
historical  authorities,  the  writer  has  confined  himself  mainly  to  such 
authorities  as  Episcopalians  themselves  acknowledge — citing  in 
proof  of  every  material  point,  their  own  historians  and  divines.  It 
is  hoped  that  this  feature  alone  may  serve  to  recommend  these 
Letters  to  their  calm  and  unprejudiced  perusal. 

It  is  believed  that  these  Letters  will  be  found  interesting,  not 
only  to  the  Episcopalian,  but  to  Protestants  of  all  denominations.. 
The  peculiar  claims  of  the  "  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"  in 
reference  to  other  Protestant  bodies,  serve  to  invest  the  discussion 
with  general  interest.  Episcopalianism  professes  to  occupy  a  sort 
of  middle  ground  between  Rome  and  Geneva.  It  is  important  for 
every  Protestant  to  ascertain  how  far  this  profession  is  true;  and  if 
true,  whether  such  ground  is  tenable. 

With  these  few  remarks,  the  author  commends  the  Letters  to  the 

candid  perusal  of  all  who  feel  an  interest  in   the  great  .questions 

which  unfortunately  divide  the  nominal  Christians  of  the  present 

day. 

A.  B. 


CONTENTS 


LETTER   I 


High  estimate  in  which  the  Prayer-Book  is  held  !>y  Einseopa- 
lians,  although  some  find  favilt  •\vith  certain  parts  ot  it.— 
Compiled  by  Cranmer  and  others  from  the  Scriptures  and  Cath- 
olic sources,  as  the  Missal,  &c.— The  Catholic  Church  older  than 
the  Bible,  and  her  authority  prior  to  it.— The  Scriptures  origi- 
nally entrusted  to  her  keeping,  and  by  her  handed  down  to  the 
present  generation.— The  Catholic  Liturgy  used  in  England  until 
the  reign  of  Henry  VHI.  who  quarrelled  with  the  Pope  about 
a  divorce,  rejected  the  authority  of  the  Church,  set  up  a  Church 
for  himself,  and  laid  the  foundations  of  the  Prayer-Book.— The 
Praver-Book  more  fully  composed  under  Edward  VL — The 
Catholic  Liturgy  abolished  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
imposed  upon  the  Church  by  Act  of  Parliament*-.— Its  use  en- 
forced by  penal  laws.— The" Prayer-Book  revised  and  altered 
repeatedly. — Inconsistencies  of  its  authors « 

LETTER   II, 

Vain  attempts  of  the  Anglican  party  to  set  aside  Queen  Mary  on 
account  of  her  religion.— Laws  enjoining  the  use  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  repealed,  and  the  Catholic  Liturgy  restored. — Parliament 
and  Convocation  acknowledge  their  errors,  and  obtain  aljsolu- 
tion.— The  severities  of  Mary's  reign  much  exaggerated,  and 
were  mainly  inflicted  upon  rebels  and  traitors.— Accession  of 
Queen  Elizabeth.— She  conceals  her  sentiments  at  first,  but  soon 
begins  to  restore  the  Anglican  worship. — She  is  made  Supreme 
Governor  of  the  Church.— Her  subjects  required  to  renounce 
the  authority  of  the  Pope.— The  bishops  refuse  to  sanction  her 
changes  and'are  driven  from  their  Sees.— The  Prayer-Book  is 
again  revised  and  altered,  and  once  more  forced  upon  the 
nation. — Its  use  again  enforced  by  fines  and  imprisonments. — 
Bloody  persecutions  against  the  Catholics. — The  Puritans  ap- 
pear, and  demand  changes  in  the  Prayer-Book. — They  attain  to 
power  and  abolish  the  Prayer-Book  and  establish  the  Directory 
in  its  place. — Charles  II.  restored  to  the  throne,  and  the  Prayer- 
Book  once  more  re-estal  dished . — Changes  demanded  by  the  Non- 
conformists, and  a  Conference  appointed. — The  Prayer-Book 
again  revised  and  amended.' — The  clergy  refusing  to  use  it,  eject- 
ed from  their  livings. — Recajjitulation  of  changes  in  the  Prayer- 
ji.ook. — Its  fortunes  ever  dependent  on  the  wiil  of  Parliament. — 
Its  use  compulsory. — It  is  once  more  revised  by  the  American 
Convention  for  the'use  of  the  Episcopal  Church. — Great  changes 
then  made  in  its  pages 2G 


VI  CONTENTS. 

LETTER   III. 

The  Piiiycr-Book  origuially  made  upon  the  plea  of  reforming  the 
Liturgy  and  tlie  Church. — The  character  of  its  principal  authors 
examined.' — Henry  VIIL,  Thomas  Cromwell,  Anne  Bolej'n,  Ed- 
ward VL.  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  the  Duke  of  Northumlierland, 
Ridley,  Latimer,  Cranmer,  Queen  Elizabeth,  reviewed  as  a 
class.' — Nearly-  all  of  them  renounced  Protestantism  after  em- 
bracing it. — All  were  intolerant  and  sanguinary. — Most  of 
them  perished  as  felons. — Were  not  "reformers,"  and  were  not 
moved  by  "Church  corrnjitions.'' — The  real  cause  of  the  Eng- 
lish Schism  set  forth 


LETTER   IV. 

Title  of  the  Praj-er-Book . — Remarks  on  the  Preface. — Tallies  of 
Lessons. — Festivals  and  Saints'  Days. — In  the  Praj'er-Book,  but 
not  observed. —  "Apocryphal"  Books  of  Scripture  read. — The 
Calendar. — English  and  American  compared. — Great  changes 
in  the  latter. — Saints  of  the  "Dark  Ages"  found  in  the  English 
Calendar. — Festival  of  the  Conception  of  the  Virgin. — Only  one 
Anglican  Saint,  King  Charles. — Departure  from  standards. — 
Rogation  and  Ember  Days. — The  Festivals,  &c.,  borrowed  from 
the  Catholic  Chtirch. — Morning  Prayer  examined. — Confession 
and  Absolution. — The  Catholic  and  Protestant  doctrine  of  for- 
giveness of  sin  compared. — Priestlj^  Absolution  taught  in  va- 
rious places. — Arguments  and  Protestant  admissions  in  its 
favor. — The    Glorui  in  Excehns. — The  Te  Donii 102- 


LETTER    V. 

Remarks  on  the  Benedicite. — Invocation  of  Saints  and  Angels. — 
Rubric  before  the  Apostles'  Creed. — Athana.siean  Creed. — Left 
out  of  the  American  Prayer-Book. — Remarks  on  the  Apostles^ 
Creed. — The  Nicene  Creed. — Additions  made  to  those  ancient 
symbols. — The  Descent  into  Hell. — Communion  of  Saints. — 
The  Consnbstantiality  of  Christ. — Articles  of  the  Ci-eed  cannot 
be  proved  from  the  Scriptures  alone. — The  Incarnation.      .     .11 


L  E  T  T  E  R   V  I  . 

Remarks  on  the  article  concerning  the  Church. — Singular  omis- 
sion.— The  Church  of  the  Creed,  One,  \lo\y,  Catholic  and  Apos- 
tolic.— Meaning  of  the  term  Church. — The  Church  one,  and  not 
several. — In  what  sense  one. — One  in  organization,  and  not  vari- 
ous "independent  branches." — Protestant  acknowledgments. — 
Branches  mere  divisions. — The  Church  is  "Holy." — This  mark 
incompatible  with  branches  or  divisions. — The  Church  is  "  Ca- 
tholic."— Meaning  of  this  term. — How  rmderstood  by  the  Fa- 
thers.'— ^Fourth  mark,  "Apostolic." — Meaning  of  this  term. — A 
Church  founded  by  the  Apostles  and  continuing  ever  since. — 
Implies  both  orders  and  jurisdiction. — Where  are  the  four  marks 
found? — The  "Protestant  Epi.scopal  Church"  does  not  pos.sess 
them. — Is  destituteof  orders  and  jurisdiction 165 


CONTEXT^.  Vll 


L  E  T  T  K  R   \"  I  I 


The  Aiif^liciin  CIuutIi  equally  destitute  nf  thi^'  iuui  tu;nks  oi'  the 
Creed. — That  Churth  the  ereature  and  slave  of  the  State. — 
These  marks  all  Ibuml  in  the  eommuuion  with  the  Pope  as  its 
head. — Anglicanism  and  Catholicity  com})ared. — Testimony  of 
Protestants  as  to  the  condition  of  England. — Spiritual  Books 
written  by  Catholics  acknowledged  to  he  superior. — Catholics 
in  communion  with  Christians  of  other  countries. — Protestant 
Episcopalianism  isolated  and  at  war  with  all  other  ecclesiastical 
bodies. — The  language  of  the  ancient  Fathers  can  only  be  adopted 
by  those  now  in  communion  with  the  Pope. — All  bound  to 
submit  to  the  true  Church. — No  other  way  of  salvation. — The 
doctrine  of  the  Creed  concerning  Bajitism. — Denied  by  Ei)isco- 
palians 106 


LETTER    V  [  J  I  . 

Responses.  Collects,  &c.,  borrowed  from  Catholic  Missal. — '■  Even- 
ing Pra\-er." — Magnificat  discarded. — Athanasean  Creed. — The 
Liturgy  borrowed  from  the  Catholics. — Various  changes  in 
it.' — Some  of  its  petitions  e.vamiued . — ' '  Heresy, ' '  how  known. — 
Repetitious. — Collects,  Epistles,  and  Crospels. — Ash-Wedncs- 
daj'. — Christmas. — Whitsunday .• — Saints'  Days. — Communion 
Service. — The  Decalogue  and  the  nse  of  images. — Seventh  day 
a  Sabbath. — Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence. — Ancient  Liturgies 
contain  Prayers  for  the  Dead,  &c. — Sacrifice  always  an  essential 
part  of  worship.' — Predicted  in  the  Old  Testament. — Reserva- 
tion of  consecrated  elements. — The  Baptismal  Service. — Its  doc- 
trine.— Use  of  the  Cross. — The  Catechism. — Its  doctrine  respect- 
ing the  saci-amcnts. — Confirmation  Service  examined. — Its  de- 
fective character. — Marriage  Service. — Differs  from  the  English 
book. — •Visitation  of  Sick. — Confession  and  Absolution  pre- 
scribed.— Communion  of  tlie  Sick. — Conimiuation  Service. — 
The  Psalter 21» 


LETT  E  R  I  X  . 
The  Thirty-Xiue  Articles.— The  Sixth  Article  E.^amined.— The 
Scriptures  not  the  sole  rnle  of  faith. — The  Canonical  Books. — 
Article  contradicted  by  the  Jlomilics. — The  authenticity  of  cer- 
tain books  discussed. — Testimony  of  Kuajip  and  Burnet. — The 
Eighteenth  Article. — It  a)iathematizcs  Errorists. — Results  of 
Schism. — The  Nineteenth  Article. — Its  definition  of  the  Visible 
Church  false  and  absurd. — So  vague  and  general  as  to  suit  all 
sects. — Adopted  by  the  Methodists. — Twentieth  Article. — It 
condemns  the  authors  of  Anglicanism. — Apostolic  Traditions. 
— Admission  of  Knapp. — T\vent}--first  Article. — Left  out  of  the 
American  book. — Authority  of  General  Councils. — Church  au- 
thority incompatible  with  private  judgment.' — Twenty-third 
Article  vague  and  ambiguous. — Its  doctrines  as  to  a  lawful 
ministry. — Candid  admission  of  Burnet. — Twenty-fourth  Arti- 
cle.— The  use  of  Latin  in  the  public  service. — Not  forbidden  in 
Scripture. — Its  advantages. — Used  by  Anglicans  in  Ireland. — 
Certain  cases. — English  Praver-Book  used  ainonu'  the  Irish.  249 


Vm  C  0  N  T  EX  T  S  . 

LETTER    X. 

Thirty-second  Article  Examined. — Celibacy  of  the  Clergy  discuss- 
ed.— Teachings  of  Scripture  upon  the  sul)ject. — Examples  of  ~ 
the  Apostles  and  first  Ministers. — Ancient  Canons. — Admis- 
sions of  Burnet,  Short  and  Hallem. — Thirty-third  Article  ex- 
amined.— Asserts  the  right  of  Excommunication. — Confirms  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Catholic  Church. — But  practically 
vague  and  inoperative  among  Protestants. — Condemns  the  au- 
thors of  the  English  Schism. — Thirty-fourth  Article  examined. 
— This  also  condemns  Anglicans. — A  National  Church  subordi- 
nate to  the  Church  Catholic. — Thirty-fifth  Article. — Homilies. — 
Their  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Articles. — Thirty-sixth  Article 
examined. — Differs  from  the  English  Prayer-Book. — Anglican 
ordinations. — Treated  as  null  by  the  Catholic  Church. — Princi- 
pal grounds  of  their  denial. — Ordination  Services  borrowed  in 
part  from  the  Roman  Pontifical. — Other  Services. — English 
Book  contains  four  additional  Forms. — Gunpowder  Plot. — The 
result  of  dire  persecution.— Not  chargeable  to  Catholic  religion. 
— Protestant  Gunpowder  Plots.— Service  for  King  Charles. — 
Two  other  Services  for  the  Royal  Family. — King's  "Healing" 
Service 2'7'7 


CONC'IA'SIOX 305 


LETTERS  TO  AN  EPISCOPALIAN. 


LETTER  I. 

High  estimate  in  which  the  Prayer-Book  is  held  hy  Episcopalians, 
althouoh  some  find  fault  with  certain  parts  of  it.— Compiled  by 
Cranmer  and  others  from  the  Scriptures,  and  Catholic  sources,  as 
the  Missal,  &c.— The  Catholic  Church  older  than  the  Bible,  and 
her  authority  prior  to  it.— The  Scriptures  originally  entrusted  to 
her  keeping  and  by  her  handed  down  to  the  present  generation.— 
Catholic  Liturgy  us"ed  in  England  until  Henry  VIH.  who  qua,rrelled 
with  the  Pope  about  a  diyorce,  rejected  the  authority  of  tlie  Church, 
set  up  a  Church  for  himself  and  laid  the  foundations  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  —The  Prayer-Book  more  fully  composed  under  Edward  VI. — 
The  Catholic  Li"turgy  abolished  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
imposed  upon  the  Church  by  act  of  Parliament.— Its  use  enforced 
by  penal  laws.— The  Prayer-Book  reyised  and  altered  repeatedly.— 
Inconsistencies  of  its  authors. 

My  Dear  Friexd  : 

I  PROPOSE  to  offer  you  in  a  spirit  of  charity,  a  few  plain 
reflections  upon  ' '  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Admin- 
istration of  the  Sacraments  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies 
of  the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America."  Fully  aware 
of  the  exalted  estimation  in  which  this  book  is  held  by  Pro- 
testant Episcopalians,  it  is  my  wish  to  handle  it  with  due 
deference  to  the  religious  feelings  with  which  it  is  intimately 
associated  in  their  minds.  The  feeling  of  veneration  is  un- 
fortunately too  seldom  evinced  in  the  Protestant  world,  to  be 
lightly  treated,  when  it  does  happen  to  show  itself;  and  under 
any  circumstances,  it  is  a  feeling  which  should  always  be 
respected,  even  though  it  may  be  mingled  with  more  or  less 

of  error.  -r.     i    •      i 

To  the  Protestant  Episcopalian,  his  Prayer-Book  is  the 
book  of  his  heart.     He  regards  it  with  a  fervent  attachment. 
He  esteems  it  more  highly  than  any  other  human  production. 
2 


8  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

In  short,  he  venerates  it  next  to  the  Bible  itself.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  high  appreciation  which  he  has  formed  of  it,  from 
his  own  use  of  it  in  mature  years,  he  has  been  accustomed 
from  his  childhood  to  hear  it  lauded  in  the  highest  terms  of 
praise  to  be  found  in  our  language.  From  the  pulpit,  in 
books,  in  familiar  conversation,  it  has  been  constantly  extolled 
and  held  up  for  admiration,  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  Epis- 
copalians, but  for  the  advantage  and  allurement  of  Protestants 
of  all  denominations.  Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  I  have 
any  wish  to  disparage  a  book  so  highly  esteemed  by  many 
whose  intelligence  and  piety  I  fi'eely  acknowledge.  It  is  far 
otherwise  with  me — I  would  rather  unite  with  those  good 
men  in  praising  and  magnifying  it.  But  then  I  should 
praise  it  not  as  a  whole,  but  only  in  some  of  its  parts,  and 
with  certain  exceptions.  Much  of  it  is  worthy  of  all  the 
panegyrics  which  learned  and  eloquent  divines  have  pro- 
nounced upon  it.  And  if,  in  uniting  with  them  in  the 
general  chorus  of  praise,  I  am  reluctantly  compelled  to  ex- 
cept this  or  that  part  of  it,  I  do  no  more  than  some  of  its 
own  friends  have  done,  although  it  may  happen  that  some 
of  them  have  regarded  as  beauties,  what  I  regard  as  blem- 
ishes :  and  on  the  other  hand,  what  I  regard  as  beauties, 
some  may  regard  as  blemishes. 

I  agree,  then,  with  you  my  friend,  that  the  Prayer-Book 
is  for  the  most  part  worthy  of  all  the  praises  which  you 
have  been  accustomed  to  bestow  upon  it.  And  now,  having 
admitted  this  much,  will  you  candidly  examine  with  me  the 
important  question  :  From  u-liat  source  is  the  excellent  matter 
contained  in  this  hook  derived?  Is  it  of  Protestant  origin? 
Did  it  first  see  the  light  since  the  days  of  Luther  and  Henry 
VIII.  ?  or  did  it  originate  in  those  earlier  and  happier  times, 
when  England  was  united  in  faith  and  worship  with  the 
Church  on  the  Continent  and  with  the  Holy  Roman  See  ? 
It  is  a  very  common  idea,  I  know,  that  the  Prayer-Book 
is  entirely  the  work  of  the  "  Reformers," — so-called — Cran- 
mer  and  his  confederates.  But  this  idea  is  very  erroneous ; 
these  men  did  indeed  compile  the  Prayer-Book,  but  they 
did  not  originate  the  matter  which  it  contains.  Most  of  its 
contents  were  in  existence  long  before  these  men  were  born, 
and  all  they  did  was  to  throw  together  its  devotional  matter 
as  the  collects,  litanies,  &c.,  with  a  few  additions  of  their 
own,  in  the  shape  in  which  it  now  appears.  In  fact,  the 
Prayer-Book  was  borrowed  from  the  Catholic  Church,  in  all 


LETTER     I.  9 

its  parts,  except  here  and  there  an  element  of  Protestant 
origin.     In  the  first  pbice,  the  great  mass  of  its  contents 
are  taken  fi-om  the  Iloly  Scriptures — as  the  CJospels,  Epis- 
tles, the  Psalter,  &c.,  &c. — making  altogether  at  least  two- 
thirds  of  the  book.     And  of  course,  all  this  portion  is  pre- 
eminently worthy  of  praise  and  veneration  as  the  fruit  of 
divine  inspiration.     But  this  admission  does  not  conflict  with 
my  assertion  that  the  Prayer-Book  is  derived  from  the  Cath- 
olic Church.     It  is  indeed  derived,  as  to  the  greater  part, 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures — but  whence  do  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures come  ?     Do  they  not  come  from  the  Catholic  Church  ? 
Unquestionably  they  do.     Where  was  the  Bible  before  Lu- 
ther, and  before  Henry  VIII.  and  CranmerV     It  was  where 
it  had  been  from  the  beginning — in  the  safe  and  holy  keeping 
of  the   Catholic    Church.     It  is  a  fact  which   Protestants 
strangely  overlook,  that  the   Catholic   Church  is  older  than 
the  Bible.     When  our  Saviour  had  organized  His  Church, 
"by  selecting  His  Apostles  and  enduing  them  with  authority 
and  power  for  evangelizing  the  world,  He  sent  them  forth 
with  this  command  :   "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  aU  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and  lo  !  I  am  with  you 
alway  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."     Observe  the  terms 
of  this   great  commission — He   commands  them  to   ' '  teach 
all  nations."     He  did  not  give  them  the  Bible  and  tell  them 
to  publish  it,  and  scatter  it  indiscriminately  among  men,  so 
that  every  man  might  pick  a  religion  out  of  it,  as  he  should 
think  best.     But  they  were  to  "teach."     And  what  were 
they  to  "  teach  V"     They  were  to  teach  what  He  had  "  com- 
manded" them,  that  is,   what  they  had  learned  from  His 
sacred  lips,  and  not  what  they  had  learned  from  the  New 
Testament.     The  New  Testament  was  not  then  in  existence. 
No  part  of  it  had  then  been  written.     Nor  was  any  part 
of  it  written  for  several  years  after  that  time.     And  indeed 
the   New   Testament  in   all  its   parts  was  not   written    for 
nearly  a  half  century  after  that  time.     Consequently,  the 
Church  was  established  and  propagated  in  various  countries 
many  years  before  the  New  Testament  was  in   existence. 
Her  authority,  therefore,  is  prior  to  that  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  is  of  the  same  character  with  it.     Whether  the 
Apostles  wrote,  or  taught  by  word  of  mouth,  it  was  by  the 
same  divine  authority,  and  that  divine  authority  they  trans- 


10  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

mittecl  to  their  successors.  And  hence  to  this  day,  the 
Catholic  Church  is  a  teaching  Church,  deriving  from  the 
Apostles  the  same  great  commission — ■' '  Co  ye  and  teach  all 
nations."  The  New  Testament  is  comprised  of  nearly  thirty 
separate  and  independent  treatises,  or  tracts  as  I  may  call 
them,  such  as  Gospels,  Epistles,  Histories,  written  by  dif- 
ferent authors,  in  different  countries,  at  different  periods  and 
for  different  peoples,  and  different  objects.  No  one  of  these 
little  tracts,  (for  such  they  would  be  were  they  separately 
produced,  as  originally,)  professes  to  give  a  complete  account 
of  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  Christian  religion.  Nor 
do  the  whole  of  these  tracts  combined,  profess  to  do  any  such 
thing.  And  in  point  of  fact  they  were  not  intended  to  do 
that — for  that  was  the  office  of  the  Church  in  connection 
with  these  divine  tracts.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  when 
the  Apostles  had  written  Epistles  for  the  use  of  this  or  that 
portion  of  the  Church  in  their  day,  that  they,  the  Apostles, 
then  ceased  to  have  authority  over  these  portions  of  the 
Church.  Certainly  that  authority  continued  unimpaired  to 
the  end  of  their  lives,  and  when  they  died,  the  same  authority 
descended  to  their  successors  in  the  ministry  down  to  the 
present  day.  The  Scriptures  were  thus  written  for  the 
Church,  and  given  to  the  Church,  to  be  used  then  and  ever 
afterwards  in  connection  with  the  living  authority  of  the 
Church.  The  Scriptures  then,  were  entrusted  to  the  keep- 
ing of  the  Church,  and  in  every  subsequent  age  she  has 
been  faithful  to  her  trust.  She  first  sifted  the  genuine  writ- 
ings of  the  Apostles  from  those  which  were  spurious,  decid- 
ing for  after  times  the  great  question,  what  was  inspired  and 
what  not,  and  thus  gathered  the  genuine  tracts  together, 
and  made  what  is  now  called  the  New  Testament.  These 
have  been  carefully  guarded  from  corruption  and  transmitted 
to  our  own  times.*     In  every  age  before  the  invention  of 

*  To  show  the  difficulty  which  attended  this  work,  I  have  only  to 
mention  that  besides  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  now  com- 
monl}'  received,  there  were  circulated  in  the  early  ages,  and  by  some 
received  as  genuine,  the  "Gospel  of  the  Birth  of  Mary,"  which  was 
ascribed  to  St.  Matthew;  the  "Protevangelion,"  which  was  ascribed 
to  St.  James;  the  "Gospel  of  Nicodemus,"  the  "Epistles  of  Paul  to 
Seneca;"  the  "Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,"  &c.,  &c.  Had  it  not  l)een 
for  the  Church,  these  and  other  spurious  productions  woidd  continue 
to  be  received  as  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  ]iroduce  error  and 
confusion.  In  this  assertion  I  am  sustained  by  high  Protestant  au- 
thority.    Dr.  Knapp  says:   "The  Iiistory  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old 


LETTEll     I.  11 

printing,  many  of  her  pious  cliiklren,  particularly  the  much 
abused  monks,  spent  their  time  in  copying  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures for  the  use  of  their  own  generation,  and  to  be  handed 
down  to  us. 

Thus,  the  Sacred  Scriptures  have  in  every  age  been  the 
property  of  the  Church.  They  were  given  to  her  by  their 
inspired  authors,  and  she  faithfully  preserved  them  until  the 
days  of  Luther  and  Cranmer,  as  well  as  since.  And  when 
Luther  and  Cranmer  separated  from  her,  they  were  com- 
pelled to  take  the  Scriptures  fi-om  her.  I  might  add  much 
more  upon  this  topic,  but  my  limits  do  not  allow  of  it.  I 
trust  what  I  have  said  will  induce  you  to  follow  it  up  Avith 
further  investigation.  I  must  observe,  however,  that  in  this 
argument  I  am  sustained  by  your  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
The  20th  article  of  lleligion  expressly  asserts  that  the  Church 
is  a  "  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ."  This  is  just  what 
I  maintain — the  Church  is  the  "  keeper '  of  the  Scriptures. 
And  when  the  so-called  "  Eeformers"  left  the  Church,  they 
received  the  Scriptures  fi-om  her.  And  therefore,  my  posi- 
tion is  established,  that  the  Praj-er-Book  so  far  as  it  is  made 
up  of  Scripture,  is  derived  fi'om  the  Catholic  Church.* 

The  remaining  part  of  the  Prayer-Book,  except  small  por- 
tions here  and  there,  is  derived  likewise  from  the  Catholic 
Church.  This  assertion  can  be  proved  in  the  most  conclu- 
sive manner  by  an  inquiry  into  the  soun-e  of  the  various 
prayers,  collects,  litanies,  &c.  which  are  so  highly  extolled 
for  their  piety  and  fervor.  The  Prayer-Book  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  in  this  country,  it  is  well  known,  is  derived 
from  the  Church  of  England,  and  is  the  same  as  the  Prayer 
Book  of  that  Church,  with  the  exception  of  certain  altera- 
tions, omissions  and  additions,  of  which  I  shall  hereafter 
speak.  Before  the  American  Revolution,  it  was  precisely 
the  same.     The  Episcopalians   of  this   country  were  then 

Testament  Scriptures  is  obscure,  from  the  deficiency  in  ancient  re- 
cords. *  *  *  After  all  it  must  remain  imperfect."  Again,  he 
saj-s  :  '•  But  respecting  some  particular  books,  it  cannot  he  ascertained 
from  historical  records  either  tliat  they  belonged  to  the  collection  ori- 
ginally-, or  at  what  time  they  were  received  as  canonical.  {Lectures 
on  Christian  Theologif,  Art.  I.,  g  4.  This  is  a  text-book  in  at  least  one 
Episcopalian  Theological  Seminary.) 

*  It  was  taken  from  the  Church  also,  because  the  same  portions  of 
Scripture  had  long  been  appropriated  by  the  Church  in  her  various 
services,  particularly  the  Gospels,  Epistles  and  Psalter. 
•)* 


12  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

members  of  the  Clmvcli  of  England,  and,  of  course,  used 
the  same  Prayer  Book.  Let  us,  then,  see  what  was  the 
origin  of  this  Prayer-Book.  Enghmd,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  when  Henry  VIII.  ascended  the  throne, 
was  united  in  faith  and  worship  with  the  Church  on  the  Con- 
tinent, and  acknowledging  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  was 
a  part  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Of  course,  then,  the  Liturgy 
used  in  that  country,  was,  in  the  main,  the  same  as  that  used 
in  other  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  same  as  is 
still  vised  by  the  Catholic  Church  in  this  country  and  else- 
where, and  which  is  commonly  called  the  Roman  Liturgy, 
and  may  be  found  in  what  is  called  the  Missal.  This  was 
the  Prayer-Book  of  the  Church  in  England,  until  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  But  Henry  YIII.  quarrelled  with 
the  Pope  because  he  was  not  allowed  to  divorce  his  wife, 
the  foithful  Catherine,  with  whom  he  had  lived  seventeen 
years  in  peace  and  happiness — because  he  was  not  allowed 
to  put  her  away  to  make  room  for  the  'young  and  beautiful 
Anne  Boleyn.  Previous  to  this  affair,  he  was  not  only  a 
devoted  adherent  of  the  Pope,  but  he  even  wrote  a  treatise 
on  the  "  Seven  Sacraments"  in  opposition  to  the  vagaries  of 
Martin  Luther,  a  treatise  which  gained  for  him,  from  the 
Pope,  the  title  of  "Defender  of  the  Faith,"  a  title  ever 
since  strangely  held  by  the  Sovereigns  of  that  country,  in- 
cluding Her  Gracious  Majesty  Queen  Victoria.  This  wretched 
man  (who  afterwards  divorced  and  put  to  death  several 
wives,)  because  he  was  not  allowed  to  follow  his  passions  in 
opposition  to  the  divine  law,  renounced  the  authority  of  the 
Pope,  and  compelled  his  people  to  do  the  same  by  means  of 
legal  enactments,  fines  and  punishments.  This  was  the  be- 
ginning of  the  separation  of  England  from  Rome  ;  although 
the  schism  was  healed  underMary,  it  was  renewed  by  Queen 
Elizabeth,  whom  the  Pope  refused  to  acknowledge  as  a  legi- 
timate Sovereign,  as  she  had  not  been  born  in  lawful  wed- 
lock. Henry  having  repudiated  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
put  himself  in  the  place  of  the  Pope,  and  made  Cranmer 
his  Archbishop.  The  latter,  as  the  pliant  tool  of  the  mon- 
arch, pronounced  the  divorce,  and  gave  him  Anne  Boleyn 
to  wife,  and  pronounced  her  his  true  and  lawful  wife,  although 
at  a  subsequent  period  he  divorced  this  same  woman  from 
Henry,  and  pronounced  her  marriage  with  the  king  null  and 
void  from  the  beginning.  In  this  way  poor  Anne  lost  her 
kead,  and  another  wife  was  taken — all  with  the  aid  and  au- 


LKTTEH     I.  13^ 

thority  of  the  aceoiuinodatiug  Cranmcr.  But  I  cannot  here 
detail  the  various  stejis  by  which  the  separation  of  Enghmd 
fi'oiu  Home  was  brought  about.  Let  the  candid  Protestant 
examine  any  impartial  history  of  these  times,  and  he  will 
find  enough  to  disgust  him  both  with  the  ''  Iteformers"  and 
their  work.*  Henry  having  got  rid  of  the  Pope,  had  every 
thing  his  own  way.  lie  was  absolute  master  of  Church  and 
State.  Ilis  will  was  law.  Every  man,  no  matter  how  high, 
had  to  obey  his  l>ehest  or  go  to  the  stake.  It  was  under  the 
despotic  sway  of  this  beastly  tyrant,  that  the  foundations  of 
the  I'rayer-Book  were  laid.  A  book  was  published  called 
"  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  which  contained  the 
Creed,  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Seven  Sacraments,  the 
Pater  Nos^sr,  Hail  Mary,  &.c.  A  few  years  afterwards, 
this  book  was  revised,  and  published  under  the  title  of  "A 
Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man,"" 
containing  Transubstantiation,  Masses  for  the  Dead,  &c.  In 
point  of  fact,  but  little  change  was  made  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church,  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  All  he  de- 
sired was  to  get  the  Pope  out  of  his  way,  that  he  might 
manage  everj'  thing  for  himself  In  Church  and  State.  And 
this  fact  shews  conclusively  how  little  need,  and  how  litle 
desire  there  was  to  reform  the  Church.  Henry  separated 
fi'om  the  Pope  in  1530,  and  although  he  reigned  seventeen 
years  after  that  event,  yet  in  all  that  time  the  doctrines  held 
and  taught  by  the  authorities  of  both  Church  and  State, 
were  substantially  the  same  as  were  held  under  the  Pope, 
and  the  same  as  were  held  by  Catholics  everywhere.  Henry 
was  succeeded  by  Edward  YI.,  a  lad  of  nine  years  of  age, 
who  thenceforth  became  the  head  of  Church  and  State,  and 
under  whom  changes  of  a  more  important  character  were 
effected,  particularly  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church.  A 
Prayer-Book  was  set  forth,  very  nearly  resembling  the  one 
now  used  by  the  Church  of  England,  but  more  in  accordance 
with  the  Catholic  ftiith  and  worship,  as  it  contained  prayers 
for  the  dead,  the  use  of  chrism,  &c.  To  compile  this  book,. 
a  committee  of  eighteen  bishops,  besides  a  number  of  inferior 
clerg}-,  was  appointed.  But  before  the  work  was  completed, 
most  of  the  bi.shops  withdrew  from  the  undertaking,  as  they 
found  it  impossible  to  concur  in  the  radical  changes  which 

*Soe  William  Cobbett's //is^ory  of  the  Reformation,  or  "Waterwortli's 
Lectures  on  t/ie  Reformation. 


14  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  dominant  party  were  determined  to  make  in  the  estah- 
lished  doctrines  of  the  Church.  And  when  the  work  finally 
appeared,  only  four  of  the  bishops  out  of  eighteen,  gave  it. 
their  sanction,  although  all  the  powerfid  influences  of  tiie- 
Court  were  exerted  in  favor  of  the  project.  This  fact  shews, 
that  even  then,  the  Church,  by  a  majority  of  its  autho- 
rised rulers,  was  against  the  innovations  of  King  Edward  and 
his  minions,  in  spite  of  the  secular  and  despotic  power  which 
royalty  had  wielded  over  it  in  this  and  the  preceding  reign. 
This  book  was  entitled,  "  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and 
Administration  of  the  Sacraments  and  other  Rites  and  Cere- 
monies of  the  Church,  after  the  use  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land." It  was  mainly  compiled  from  the  Roman  Missal  and! 
other  books  of  prayer  which  had  been  used  for  centuries,  bj 
the  Catholics  in  England,  down  to  that  time.*  This  is  an 
assertion  which  cannot  be  denied.  Indeed  it  is  expressly 
admitted  by  the  most  candid  Protestant  historians.  Dr. 
Short,  an  English  Pi'otestant  Bishop,  published  a  History  of 
the  Church  of  England,  which  has  been  republished  in  this^ 
country,  and  can  easily  be  consulted  by  any  reader.  And 
what  does  he  say  upon  this  point  ?  He  says :  ' '  On  the- 
whole,  this  book  forms  a  connecting  link  between  the  Missal 
and  the  Prayer-Book.  *  *  *  Almost  the  whole  of  it 
was  taken  fi-om  different  Roman  Catholic  services,  particu- 
larly those  after  the  use  of  Salisbury,  which  were  then  gene- 
rally adopted  in  the  South  of  England ;  and  the  principle^ 
on  which  the  compilers  proceeded  in  the  work,  was  to  alter 
as  little  as  possible  what  had  been  fiimiliar  to  the  people. 
Thus,  the  Litany  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  in  the  Salisbury 
Hours,  excepting  that  one  hundred  and  sixteen  addresses  tO' 
the  Apostles,  the  Virgin,  and  different  Saints,  are  left  out. 
*  *  *  The  Collects,  Epistles  and  Gospels  were  almost 
entirely  the  same  as  those  in  the  Salisbury  Hours ;  and 
several  ceremonies  were  retained   which   have   been   since- 


*  Certain  Episcopalian  -n-riters  have  stated  that  their  Prayer-Book 
is  older  than  the  Missal,  and  therefore  not  derived  from  it.  To  prove 
this,  they  assert  that  the  Missal  was  drawn  up  by  persons  appointecJ 
by  the  Council  of  Trent  in  1562.  But  this  is  a  great  mistake.  The 
Missal  can  be  traced  back  to  Pope  Gelasius,  in  the  fifth  century.  Ad- 
ditions were  made  to  it  by  Gregoiy  the  Great,  in  the  seventh  century. 
A  revision  of  the  book  was  made  by  the  authority  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  and  afterwards  it  received  the  sanction  of  Pius  V.,  who  then 
ordered  it  to  be  used  more  universally  in  the  Church. 


L  E  T  T  K  R     I  .  IS- 

discarded."  (§§  743  aud  744.)  This  testimony  from  a 
"  Church  of  England"  Bishop  is  conclusive.  Certain  Epis- 
copalians do  not  like  to  admit  that  the  most  beautiful  por- 
tions of  their  much  lauded  Prayer-Book  are  derived  from 
Koman  Catholic  sources,  and  they  try  very  hard  to  evade  the 
disagreeable  truth  by  laboring  to  shew  that  these  devotions 
are  taken  fi-om  more  ancient  sources.  This  is  a  miserable 
quibble,  and  un worth}'  of  a  Christian  or  a  scholar.  The 
Catholic  Church  is  ancient,  and  her  liturgical  and  devotional 
services  arc  likewise  ancient — and  these  services  which  she 
used  in  the  sixteenth  century,  can  be  traced  back  to  the  sixth 
century,  and  even  further.  And  the  question  is  not,  what 
were  the  original  sources  of  these  services,  (although  we 
maintain  that  they  were  Catholic  from  the  very  beginning) — 
but  whether  these  services  from  which  the  Prayer-Book  was 
compiled,  were  those  used  by  the  Catholic  Church  for  cen- 
turies before  Thomas  Cranmer  appeared.  This  is  the  only 
C[uestion — aud  this  can  be  answered  only  in  the  affirmative, 
as  admitted  by  the  learned  historian  just  quoted.  Dr.  Short, 
who  states  that  the  Liturgy,  Epistles,  Gospels,  aud  Collects- 
are  the  same  as  found  in  the  Salisbury  Hours,  a  Catholic 
Prayer-Book  then  used,  and  one,  as  he  intimates,  pretty 
full  of  prayers  to  the  Saints,  just  like  a  Catholic  Prayer-Book 
of  the  present  dixj. 

Cranmer  and  a  few  others  of  kindred  spirit,  having  pre- 
pared the  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  young  King  Edward,, 
who,  if  we  believe  his  panegyrists,  was  a  prodigy  of  piety, 
took  measures  to  have  it  introduced  into  public  worship.. 
And  what  means  do  you  think  he  adopted  ?  As  a  prepara- 
tion for  the  great  change,  he  issued  a  proclamation  prohibit- 
ing public  preaching  throughout  the  country  I  Only  think 
of  that  I  Every  preacher  in  the  country  was  instantly  si- 
lenced by  the  mandate  of  this  boy — the  puppet  of  the  Pro- 
tector, Cranmer,  and  others  of  the  same  clique.  This  act  of 
tyranny  over  the  ministers  of  religion  was  perpetrated  in 
order,  as  the  proclamation  read,  "  to  put  an  end  to  all  con- 
troversies in  religion."  This  was  certainly  an  cfiectual  way 
to  put  a  stop  to  controversy  and  to  bring  about  a  uniformity 
of  opinion.  But  however  strange  such  means  may  seem  to 
certain  liberal  Protestants  of  the  present  age,  it  was  the 
favorite  method  of  the  abettors  of  the  English  ' '  Reforma- 
tion." Legal  enactments,  fines  and  punishments  were  the 
eflFectual  arguments  which  brought  about  this  great  change. 


16  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Any  preacher  who  dared  to  disobey  this  prochimation  of 
Edward,  was  sent  to  prison  !  The  ancient  Catholic  worship 
•was  summarily  abolished  by  act  of  Parliament,  and  every 
clergyman  in  the  land  was  commanded  to  use  the  ' '  35ook 
of  Common  Prayer"  now  set  forth,  and  no  other  forms  of 
prayer  in  public  worship  whatsoever.  And  if  any  clergy- 
man should  dare  to  violate  this  command  of  the  State,  he- 
was  to  forfeit  one  year's  salary,  and  be  imprisoned  for  six 
months.  And  if  he  should  so  offend  a  second  time,  he  was 
to  be  imprisoned  a  whole  year,  and  be  deprived  of  his  cure 
or  parish.  And  for  a  third  offence,  he  was  to  be  imprisoned 
for  life !  And  these  ruinous  penalties  were  directed  not 
only  against  the  clergy  who  might  refuse  to  use  the  Prayer- 
Book,  or  who  might  use  any  other  book  instead  of  it,  but  also- 
against  any  clergyman  who  should  venture  even  to  preach  or 
speali  against  the  said  Prayer-Book.  The  poor  clergyman, 
however  conscientiously  attached  to  the  old  worship,  or  how- 
ever conscientiously  opposed  to  the  new,  was  bound  to  con- 
form in  silence  or  else  forfeit  his  office  and  spend  the  re- 
mainder of  his  days  in  prison.*  Such  were  the  means  by 
which  the  Prayer-Book  was  forced  upon  the  Church,  by 
Cranmer  and  other  so-called  "  Reformers,"  who  by  the  injus- 
tice and  tyranny  of  Henry  VIII.  had  got  the  control  of 
affairs  in  their  own  hands.  When  Henry  quarrelled  with 
the  Pope,  he  adopted  similar,  but  still  more  cruel  means  to 
abolish  the  Papal  authority  in  the  land.  In  fact,  the  "  Re- 
formation" and  the  establishment  of  the  Prayer-Book,  first 
tinder  Henry,  then  under  Edward,  and  finally  under  Eliza- 
beth, were  effected  entirely  by  penal  enactments  made  by 
the  sovereign  and  parliament,  such  as  fines,  imprisonments, 
and  burning  at  the  stake.  Whatever  ideas  of  religious  liberty 
the  Protestants  of  the  present  day,  or  of  this  country,  may 
have,  the  first  Protestants,  named  above,  Henry,  Edward,  Eli- 
zabeth, Cranmer  and  their  confederates,  entertained  no  such 
sentiments.  They  set  aside  the  authority  of  the  Pope  and 
of  the  Church,  although  sacred  from  the  lapse  of  ages,  and 
required  every  man,  woman  and  child  to  receive  and  profess 
these  oj)inious,  or  suffer  punishment,  even  to  death.     Thej 

*This  penal  enactment  included  the  laity  too.  It  was  ordered,  that 
if  any  one  spoke  against  the  Prayer-Book,  he  was  to  be  fined  for  the 
first  and  second  offences ;  and  for  the  third,  forfeit  all  his  goods  and 
be  imprisoned  for  life. 


LETTERI.  17 

cared  nothing  for  religious  liberty,  they  disregarded  indivi- 
dual consciences,  they  repudiated  private  judgment,  (except 

for    themselves,) their    principle    was    simply conform 

or  sufibr.  It  was,  indeed,  "  the  koran  or  the  sword" — "  the 
Prayer-Book  or  the  prison" — "Protestantism  or  temporal 
ruin."  All  this  may  be  new  to  some  of  my  readers.  There 
are,  I  am  sure,  many  Protestants  who  have  never  read  these 
things  before.  And  why  ?  Simply  because  they  have  read 
nothing  upon  the  subject  but  what  was  written  by  interested 
men,  by  men  whose  object  was  merely  to  glorify  the  "  Re- 
formation" and  the  "Reformers,"  concealing  their  cruelty 
and  tyranny,  their  misdeeds  and  bloody  persecutions.  All 
such  horrid  things,  they  have  been  led  to  believe,  were  per- 
petrated only  under  "Bloody  Mary"  and  other  Catholic 
sovereigns.  But  impartial  history  tells  a  very  different  tale. 
The  new  religion  and  the  new  Prayer-Book  were  imposed 
upon  the  nation  by  means  of  fines  and  punishments.  This 
is  an  important  fact,  and  one  that  cannot  be  denied.  The 
history  of  the  Prayer-Book  is  a  history  of  persecution.  This 
is  a  disagreeable  truth  I  know,  to  many  a  Protestant  Epis- 
copalian, and  one  which  some  may  be  wholly  unprepared, 
and  very  unwilling  to  receive.  That  Pi-ayer-Book  is  asso- 
ciated in  their  minds  with  all  that  is  good,  and  holy,  and 
charitable,  but  nevertheless,  the  fact  stands  forth  in  bold 
relief,  that  it  originated  in  injustice,  tyranny  and  cruelty. 
Let  them  think  well  'of  the  Prayer-Book  who  have  been  so 
trained  from  their  early  days,  but  let  them  remember,  with 
shame  and  sorrow,  that  their  Protestant  forefathers  forced 
that  book  upon  the  poor  Catholics  by  means  of  cruel  and 
crushing  penalties.  I  have  said  that  these  are  facts  which 
cannot  be  denied,  and  although  they  may  be  omitted  in  most 
Protestant  accounts  of  the  "  Reformation,"  yet  they  will  be 
found  stated,  at  least  in  part,  by  a  few  Protestant  histo- 
rians of  a  more  impartial  character.  To  one  of  these  histo- 
rians I  have  already  referred  ;  I  mean  Bishop  Short.  This 
author  is  compelled  to  state  some  of  these  facts,  and  while 
he  seems  to  regret  them,  he  yet  ventures  to  justify  them. 
And  on  what  plea  does  he  justify  them  'i  The  only  plea  that 
can  be  urged — that  of  necessity  and  expediency.  There 
was  no  other  way  of  bringing  about  a  change  of  religion 
than  by  the  use  of  force — therefoi-e  it  was  right  and  proper 
to  use  force.  This  is  the  abominable  doctrine  which  Pro- 
testants falsely  charge  upon  Catholics,  that  is,  that  "the 


18  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

end  justifies  the  means."  They  will  perceive  that  this  is 
their  own  doctrine,  or  at  least  was  the  doctrine,  and  practice 
too,  of  the  first  Protestants.  This  was  the  doctrine  upon 
which  they  rode  into  power,  and  established  themselves  upon 
the  ruins  of  the  Catholic  cause,  although  they  may  now  find 
it  convenient  to  disavow  the  principle,  as  it  is  no  longer  ne- 
cessary, the  end  having  been  accomplished. 

But  let  me  quote  a  few  passages  from  Bishop  Short's  His- 
tory in  reference  to  the  use  of  force  in  establishing  the  new 
worship.  He  says  the  great  mass  of  the  common  people 
"  neither  understood  nor  rejoiced  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Re- 
formation against  which  their  prejudices  were  excited.  The 
upper  classes  had  been  bribed  into  acquiescence  in  these 
changes  by  the  robberies  committed  on  the  Church  property, 
in  which  they  had  been  allowed  to  share."  "  Most  of  the 
clergy  had  complied  with  what  had  been  done,  from  fear 
rather  than  from  any  approbation  of  it,  and  were  ready  to 
turn  whenever  an  opportunity  should  occur."  (§  335.)  Now, 
here  is  the  whole  history  of  the  English  Reformation  and 
of  the  establishment  of  the  Prayer-Book,  in  a  nut-shell,  and 
furnished  too,  by  a  Protestant  bishop.  The  upper  classes, 
that  is,  the  nobility,  were  bribed  by  donations  of  property 
taken  from  the  Church,  and  thus  joined  with  the  King 
in  making  penal  statutes  for  forcing  the  clergy  and  the 
people  to  adopt  the  new  religion.  But  let  us  hear  Bishop 
Short  again.  After  laboring  hard  to  palliate  the  injustice  of 
the  Protestant  authorities,  he  says  in  reference  to  forcing 
the  Prayer-Book  upon  the  people — "The  only  real  hard- 
ship seems  to  consist  in  this,  that  these  individuals  who 
disapproved  of  it  were  not  allowed  any  Christian  liberty  of 
absenting  themselves  from  the  churches  and  of  seeking  else- 
where a  service  better  suited  to  their  own  opinions."  (§  388.) 
This  was  not  the  "  only  hardship  " — but  it  was  a  hardship 
of  the  most  cruel  and  iniquitous  character.  It  was  bad 
enough  surely,  to  take  their  churches  from  them  and  turn 
them  adrift  to  worship  under  the  broad  canopy  of  heaven, 
or  in  some  miserable  hovel  or  garret.  But  the  "  tender  mer- 
cies" of  Cranmor  and  his  brother  ' '  Reformers"  did  not  allow 
them  even  that  small  privilege.  These  intolerant  men  not 
only  set  up  the  Protestant  worship  in  every  Catholic  church, 
but  they  actually  compelled  Catholics  to  attend  these  church- 
es, and  participate  in  that  worship,  thus  making  them  wit- 
ness the  desecration  of  their  own  churches,  and  forcinsr  them 


I,  E  T  T  K  11    I 


19 


to  take  part  in  a  service  which  they  regarded  as  false  and 
heretical !  They  must  join  in  the  Protestant  worship,  smd 
they  must  not  worship  in  any  other  way,  nor  any  where  else  ! 
Was  not  this  the  very  climax  of  intolerance  and  cruelty  ? 
How  can  Protestants,  after  becoming  acquainted  with  such 
facts,  continue  to  acknowledge  the  authors  of  such  iniquity 
as  their  founders !  Well  did  a  distinguished  Protestant,  when 
he  was  beginning  to  learn  the  true  character  of  these  inno- 
vators, exclaim  "A^erily,  I  hate  the  Reformers  and  the  Refor- 
mation more  and  more."  I  shall  take  occasion  before  I  have 
finished  my  remarks,  to  give  a  brief  sketch  of  the  character 
of  the  leaders  in  this  rebellion  against  the  Church,  such  as 
Henry  VIII.,  Cranmer,  Latimer,  the  Earl  of  Somerset,  and 
others.  I  am  persuaded  that  their  flagitious  conduct  is  but 
little  known  to  many  Protestants,  who  have  been  accustomed 
to  read  only  the  panegyrics  of  writers  whose  interests  and 
whose  sectarian  feelings  prompted  them  to  present  their  heroes 
in  an  attractive  light.* 

I  have  said  that  by  act  of  Parliament,  the  Catholic  wor- 
ship, the  Holy  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  was  abolished,  and  all 
were  required  to  worship  in  public  according  to  the  new 
Prayer-Book.  And  so  rigidly  Avas  this  law  enforced,  that 
the  poor  Catholic  was  not  allowed  the  privilege  of  worshipping 
God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience,  even  within 
the  privacy  of  his  own  domicil !  Think  of  that,  ye  Protest- 
ants who  boast  of  your  love  of  religious  liberty  !  This  pro- 
hibition was  universal;  no  one,  neither  high  nor  low,  was 
excepted  from  its  cruel  operation.  Even  the  Princess  Mary, 
a  devout  Catholic,  and  heiress  presumptive  to  the  throne,  was 
ordered  to  ' '  conform  immediately  to  the  established  form  of 
worship."  The  pious  w^oman  refused  to  obey  the  unjust  com- 
mand.    She  was  consequently  summoned  before  the  Council, 

*  How  little  liberty  was  allowed  even  the  bishops  and  otlicr.s  who 
-were  appointed  by  royal  command  to  compile  the  Praycr-Book  may 
be  seen  from  the  following:  passage  from  .Short :—" A  committee  of 
twelve  persons  was  also  appointed  to  prepare  a  new  Ordination  feer- 
vice  one  of  whom  was  Heath,  Bishop  of  ^Vorcester ;  and  upon  his 
refusal  to  consent  to  the  proposed  alterations,  he  teas  committed  to  the 
fleet  prison^      (?  319.)  ,  r^    ,.,  ,  ^i 

■    Short  well  remarks  w\>on  this  act  of  tyranny,  '•  So  ht tie  were  the 
principles  of  liberty,  of  either  conscience  or  person,  then  understood. 
The  king  and  they'who  governed  in  his  name,  the  Protector  and  Cran- 
mer, were  omnipotent.     All  were  bound  to  conform  to  their  wishes, 
or  like  Bishop  Heoth,  go  to  prison  ! 
3 


20  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

when  she  boldly  maintained  her  right  to  worship  God  ac- 
cording to  her  conscience.  Her  chaplains  and  domestics  were 
sent  to  prison,  and  other  means  were  used  to  harrass  her  into 
compliance.  But  she  resolutely  persisted  in  rejecting  their 
new  worship,  declaring  that  she  would  rather  die  than  adopt  it. 
Seeing  that  their  threats  availed  nothing,  they  next  considered 
whether  they  should  proceed  to  further  extremities.  But  her 
uncle,  the  Emperor  Charles  X.  of  Spain,  threatened  them 
with  war  if  they  did  not  desist ;  besides,  the  failing  health 
of  young  Edward  warned  them  of  the  danger  which  they  in- 
curred, inasmuch  as  at  his  death  Mary  would  become  Queen — 
which,  indeed,  soon  took  place,  and  these  barbarous  men 
were  compelled  to  taste  of  that  severity  which  they  had  so 
unsparingly  meted  out  to  the  Catholics.  So  they  reluctantly 
allowed  the  Princess  to  use  the  old  worship  in  her  castle.* 

In  the  legislative  act  by  which  the  new  Prayer-Book  was 
put  forth  and  required  to  be  used,  it  is  expressly  asserted 
that  the  said  book  was  composed  ' '  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Grhost  with  one  uniform  agreement,"  although  of  eighteen 
bishops,  all  but  three  or  four  abandoned  the  undertaking ; 
and  eight  of  them  were  bold  enough  to  vote  against  it  in 
their  place  in  the  House  of  Lords.  But  if  they  considered 
it  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  that  time,  some  how  or  other 
they  discovered  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  years,  that  it  was  the 
result  of  error  and  passion  !  For  this  latter  discovery  they 
were  indebted  to  the  accession  of  3Iary  to  the  throne.  Truly 
do  "circumstances  alter  cases."  If  the  Holy  Ghost  aided 
them  to  compose  it,  is  it  not  strange  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
did  not  aid  them  to  stand  up  for  it  under  Queen  Mary  ? 
When  the  Divine  Spirit  aided  the  Apostles  to  compose  the 
Sacred  Scriptures,  that  same  Divine  Sjiirit  aided  and  enabled 
them  to  lay  down  their  lives  in  defence  of  their  teaching. 
But  the  Apostles  of  the  "Reformation"  were  evidently  of 
a  very  different  character,  and  inspired  by  another  spirit. 

■■■■According  to  Protestant  accounts  the  young  king  Avas  bitterly 
opposed  to  his  sister's  continued  use  of  the  service  of  the  Mass  as  an 
a-\vful  sin  ;  (!)  so  much  so,  that  it  required  all  the  casuistry  of  Cran- 
nier  to  induce  him  to  tolerate  it.  After  holding  a  long  argument  with 
him  upon  the  subject,  Cranmer,  turning  to  his  tutor,  exclaimed,  "Ah  ! 
master  Cheke,  you  may  be  glad  all  the  days  of  your  life  that  you  have 
such  a  scliolar.  He  has  more  divinity  iu  his  little  finger  than  we  have 
in  our  Avhole  bodies."  This  may  have  been  a  compliment  to  the 
scholar,  but  a  very  poor  one  to  the  teacher. 


L  E  T  T  K  II     I  .  21 

They  knew  how  to  put  others  to  death  for  not  embracing 
their  religion,  but  they  were  not  willing  to  die  for  it  them- 
selves !  If  they  were  very  ingenious  in  inventing  a  new 
religion,  they  were  equally  expert  in  returning  to  the  old 
one  when  it  became  dangerous  to  adhere  to  the  new  one,  as 
under  Queen  Mary.  Even  Cranmer,  the  great  high  priest 
of  the  new  worship,  recanted  his  Protestant  errors  again  and 
again,  and  in  the  most  solemn  manner  until  within  a  few 
minutes  of  his  death,  and  until  he  saw  it  would  not  avert  his 
doom — a  doom  which  he  had  brought  upon  himself,  not  by 
his  religious  errors  merely,  but  by  his  treason,  rebellion, 
and  murderous  persecutions.* 

We  have  already  seen  that  this  Prayer-Book  was  put  forth 
in  1549,  by  the  "  Reforming"  party  "  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  with  one  uniform  agreement."  But  notwithstanding 
all  that,  only  three  years  afterward,  in  1552,  these  same  men 
discovered  that  this  book  was  mari'ed  by  very  serious  errors  ! 
For  this  fact  I  shall  cite  our  Protestant  authority  again. 
Bishop  Short  says  :  "Among  the  next  objects  which  engaged 
the  attention  of  the  governors  of  the  Church,  were  certain 
alterations  in  the  Common  Prayer-Book,  the  details  of  which 
are  given  in  their  proper  place.  They  consisted  chiefly  in 
the  omission  of  superstitious  rites,  whicli  had  been  continued 
in  the  first  Liturgy.  The  Ordination  service  too,  was  now 
added,  and  the  whole,  thus  amended,  difiers  very  little  from 
the  one  at  present  in  use."  (§  826.)  Thus,  by  the  ad- 
mission of  a  Protestant  bishop,  this  Prayer-Book,  put  forth 
"  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  contained  "  superstitious 
rites !"  In  another  chapter,  Dr.  Short  tells  us  what  these 
*'  superstitious  rites"  were.  Among  the  changes  introduced 
was  the  omission  of  the  ' '  form  of  exorcism "  in  Baptism, 
chrism,  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  Confirmation  and  Matrimony, 

*  The  forcing  of  the  Prayer-Book  upon  the  Church  caused  great 
commotions  throughout  the  country.  The  people  were  so  indignant 
at  the  change,  that  they  broke  out  in  open  revolt.  In  Cornwall,  their 
opposition  took  the  form  of  a  formidable  insurrection.  Ten  thousand 
men  banded  together  agaiust  the  tyranny  of  the  government,  and 
demanded  by  force  of  arms  a  restoration  of  the  old  doctrines  and  the 
old  service.  In  Norfolk  an  army  of  twenty  thousand  men  was  or- 
ganized for  the  same  purpose ;  and  so  in  other  places.  But  the  strong 
arm  of  power  succeeded  in  subduing  them.  The  regular  troops,  with 
hireling  soldiers  from  Germany  and  elsewhere,  caused  many  of  them 
to  "bite  the  dust,"  and  forced  the  remainder  to  go  to  Church,  and 
use  the  new  Prayer-Book  and  nothing  else. 


22  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

directions  to  Confession,  and  last,  but  not  least,  prayers  for 
the  dead!  (§  745,  note.)  From  the  things  then  omitted, 
the  reader  can  form  a  good  idea  of  the  Common  Prayer- 
Book  as  it  first  came  forth  "  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
with  one  uniform  agreement" — it  contained  prayers  for  the 
dead,  the  use  of  chrism,  an  order  for  private  Confession,  and 
other  ' '  superstitious  rites  !"*  Now,  these  things  are  either 
serious  errors,  or  they  are  not.  If  they  are  not,  why  are 
Catholics  of  the  present  day  denounced  on  account  of  them. 
But  if  they  are  serious  errors,  how  did  it  happen  that  these 
' '  Reformers"  retained  them  in  their  public  liturgy  with  the 
aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"  If  they  retained  serious  errors,  it 
is  evident  that  they  could  not  have  been  aided  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  it  is  equally  clear  that  they  were  utterly  incom- 
petent for  the  task  of  reforming  the  Church.  I  suppose  the 
Protestant  will  say  that  they  had  iiot  yet  got  their  eyes  fully 
open.  And  so  I  should  think,  too,  although  nearly  thirty 
years  had  elapsed  since  the  commencement  of  the  schism 
under  Henry  YIII.  But  if  these  men  were  still  blind,  or 
half  blind,  it  only  proves  my  assertion  that  they  were  unfit 
for  the  work  which  they  had  undertaken.  Our  Saviour 
says  :  "if  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  shall  they  not  both  fall 
into  the  ditch."  And  if  these  men  were  not  qualified  for 
the  work  in  the  long  period  of  thirty  years,  I  should  like  to 
know  what  is  the  length  of  time  requisite  for  such  a  prepara- 
tion. They  had  the  free  use  of  the  Bible,  and  in  our  day 
it  is  held  that  almost  any  one  can  learn  the  true  religion 
by  simply  reading  its  sacred  pages.  But  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer,  and  his  brother  bishops,  and  other  assistants,  were 
unable  to  do  this  after  thirty  years  prayer  and  study,  and 

•••  For  proof  that  they  professed  that  the  Prayer-Book  was  set  forth 
' '  with  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost, ' '  T  refer  the  reader  to  Strype'  s  Hc- 
clesiastical  Memorials,  or  to  Kipp's  Douhle  Witness,  (p.  207,)  where 
the  passage  asserting  the  fact  is  quoted  from  Str^ype.  The  f'ormer  of 
these  autliors  was  an  Anglican  Divine,  the  latter  an  American  Episco- 
palian, now  Bishop  of  California.  Kipp  also  quotes  Str^j-pe  as  saying 
that,  in  forming  the  first  Prayer-Book,  they  had  an  ej^e  "  to  the  pure 
Christiaii  Religion  taught  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  also  to  the 
usage  of  the  Primitive  Church."  Of  course  Kipp  does  not  tell  his 
readers  that  this  book  contained  Confession  and  Prayers  for  the  Dead  ! 
He  also  shows  a  want  of  candor  in  terming  the  changes  made  in  the 
second  l)ook  "a  few  slight  alterations.''  The  testimony  of  Short, 
above  given,  will  enable  the  I'cader  to  judge  whether  these  were  only 
"  slight  alterations." 


LETTER!.  23 

even  with  the  "aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost  I"  The  fihu  over 
their  ej'cs  must  have  been  very  thick !  Too  thick,  it  would 
seem,  for  even  the  Holy  Ghost  to  remove  !  Although  we 
learn  fi-om  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  when  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  down  upon  Saul,  the  "  scales"  instantly  fell  from 
his  eyes,  and  he  was  immediately  transformed  from  a  blind, 
persecuting  Jew,  into  an  enlightened  Apostle  of  Christianity, 
fully  prepared  for  the  work  of  reforming  a  corrupt  world. 
But  the  Holy  Ghost  did  not  thus  operate  vnth  Cranmer  and 
his  co-laborers.  The  inference  is,  therefore,  unavoidable, 
that  these  men  made  a  slight  mistake  when  they  ascribed 
their  erroneous  production  to  the  Divine  and  Infallible  Spirit. 

But  the  (juestion  arises — if  these  men  were  so  incompetent, 
so  blind,  after  studying  the  Scriptures  for  at  least  thirty 
years,  u-hcn  did  they  become  competent,  and  icJien  did  they 
get  their  eyes  fully  opened  V  In  the  progress  of  this  histo- 
rical inijuiry,  I  shall  show  that  they  afterwards  made  other 
important  changes  in  the  Common  Prayer-Book ;  at  one 
time  by  additions ;  at  another  time  by  omissions,  and  then 
again  restoring  what  they  had  previously  rejected.  It 
is  therefore  very  important  to  know  irJien  they  became  fully 
qualified  for  their  task,  so  that  it  may  be  known  which  edition 
of  their  production  is  the  correct  and  reliable  one.  But  this 
question  is  more  easily  asked,  than  answered.  If  they  were 
not  qualified  wlien  they  professed  to  act  with  so  much  unanim- 
ity, and  with  tlie  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  difficult  to  tell 
at  what  other  time  they  were  qualified.  It  is  evident  their 
own  assertion  cannot  be  relied  on,  for  this  was  falsified  by 
their  own  subsequent  admission  in  altering  the  book  as  I 
have  shev>-n.  And  if  their  own  assertion  is  not  to  be  taken, 
whose  testimony  will  avail  for  this  purpose  ?  Certainly  not 
that  of  their  followers.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this 
boot  was  not  only  a  book  of  devotion,  but  also  a  standard 
of  doctrines.  And  it  is  evident  that  men  who  once  showed 
themselves  incompetent  to  set  forth  such  a  book,  must  neces- 
sarily be  unworthy  of  confidence  in  all  future  time.  We 
cannot  take  their  own  assertion  for  a  proof  of  their  compe- 
tency, and  as  there  is  no  other  proof,  we  can  have  no  evidence 
upon  the  subject,  and,  consequently,  cannot  depend  upon 
their  guidance. 

It  is  a  significant  fact,  that  the  changes  introduced  into  the 
Prayer-Book  at  this  time,  were  made  with  the  co-operation 
of  Lutherans  and  others  from  the  continent.     Speaking  of 
3* 


24  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  services  of  these  men  in  England,  Dr.  Short  says:  ''  To 
this  source  we  owe  the  assistance  which  our  Church  derived 
from  Bucer,  Fagius,  Peter  Martyr  and  Ochin,  who  among 
many  others  partook  of  the  bounty  of  the  Archbishop,  aiid 
became  the  ornaments  and  instructors  of  the  two  Universi- 
ties." (§  324.)  In  another  chapter  we  are  told  that  while 
the  Prayer-Book  was  undergoing  revision,  "two  learned  for- 
eigners, who  were  then  in  England,  were  consulted  on  the 
subject,  and  their  opinions  seem  to  have  coincided  with,  or 
to  have  influenced  the  decisions  of  the  English  bishops ;  for 
most  of  the  points  objected  to  by  Bucer  were  subsequently 
amended,  and  the  sentiments  of  Peter  Martyr  appear  to  have 
been  very  similar  to  those  of  Bucer."  (§  745.)  It  will 
thus  be  seen  that  Lutherans  from^  the  continent,  men  who 
did  not  recognize  even  Episcopacy,  had  a  hand  in  forming 
the  Common  Prayer-Book.  Cranmer  who  was  the  master- 
spirit in  all  the  changes  under  Edward  YI. ,  not  only  invited 
these  men  to  England  to  teach  theology  (!)  in  the  Re- 
formed Church,  but  availed  himself  also  of  the  advice  of 
Melancthon  and  Calvin,  with  whou]  he  carried  on  a  diligent 
correspondence .  * 

The  Prayer-Book,  thus  amended  by  the  omission  of  pray- 
ers for  the  dead,  &c.,  commonly  called  the  Second  Prayer- 
Book  of  Edward  VI.,  "differs  very  little,"  says  Short,  "from 
the  one  now  in  use,"  that  is,  he  means  from  the  one  used 
in  England,  for  we  shall  see  after  awhile  that  this  book  was 
subjected  to  very  material  changes  in  the  hands  of  American 
"  reformers." 

I  might  here  descant  at  much  length  upon  the  many  and 
direftil  evils  which  flowed  from  this  forced  alteration  of  the 
public  worship,  and  the  ancient  standards  of  faith  ;  but  these 

*  Inasmuch  as  Cranmer  exerted  a  controlling  influence  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Prayer-Book,  it  is  important  that  his  opinions  shoiild  be 
well  understood,  more  particularly  since  thej-  throw  much  light  upon 
the  portions  of  the  Praj-ei'-Book  which  are  not  derived  from  Catholic 
sources,  viz  :  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  Religion,  Ordination  Ser- 
vice, &c.  Upon  this  point  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Short  is  conclusive. 
He  says  of  him  :  "he  seems  to  esteem  the  -whole  of  the  clerical  office 
as  dependent  entirely  on  the  civil  magistrate ;  that  thei-e  was  origi- 
nally no  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest ;  that  the  prince  or 
the  people  might  make  a  priest  for  themselves,  for  -whom  no  consecra- 
tion was  necessary."  (§337.)  This  was  Erastianism  indeed  !  These 
views  were  lax  enough  to  suit  the  most  radical  sect  of  the  present  day. 
The  "Three  Orders"  by  means  of  "Apostolic  Succession,"  was  no 
part  of  the  religion  of  this  "reformer."  A  priest  or  bishop  made  by 
the  king  or  by  the  people,  was  good  enough  for  him  ! 


L  K  T  T  E  K     I  .  25 

may  be  learned  from  any  full  and  impartial  history  of  the 
times.     Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  minds  of  the  people  every- 
where were  unsettled ;  the  principle  of  veneration  for  au- 
thority, and  for  things  sacred,  was  undermined  and  destroyed ; 
and  a  laxity  of  opinion  was  followed  by  a  relaxation  of  morals. 
The  most  radical  notions  in  polities  and  religion  Averc  every- 
where introduced  by  means  f>f  the  pulpit,  and  in  every  other 
way.     The  old  land-marks  having  been  removed,  the  appe- 
tite for  novelty  knew  no  bounds.     The  altars  were  removed 
from  the  Churches  to  give  place  to  communion  tables,  and 
the  jmlpits  were  abandoned  in  some  instances  to  preach  in 
the  open  fields.     The  chalices  and  other  sacred  vessels  were 
seized  upon  and  appropriated  to  private  uses.      Clerical  robes 
were  denounced   as  a  rag  of  Popery.     In  short,   so   great 
were  the  disorders  now  prevalent,  that  Latimer,  a  I'rotestant 
bishop,  was  compelled,  in  a  sermon  before  the  king,  to  ac- 
knowledge and  deplore  a  general  laxit}-  of  opinions  and  morals. 
and  to  call  for  a  restoration  of  the  ancient  discii)line.     1 
have  now  shewn  you,  my  friend,  how  the  Prayer-Book  was 
originally  put  fortli  under  the  royal  auspices  of  the  boy,  Ed- 
ward VI.     I  liave  shewn  you  by  the  highest  Protestant  au- 
thority, that  of  Bishop  Short,  that  this  book  was  compiled 
chiefly  from  the  lloman  INIissal  and  other  Catholic  sources ; 
that  the  reforming,  or  rather  revolutionary  party,  put  it  forth, 
as  they  alleged,    '■  by  tlie  aid  of  the  Holy  (Ihost  with  one 
uniform  agreement ;"  and  that  this  book,  thus  put  forth,  con- 
tained prayers  for  the  dead,  exorcism,  extreme  unction,  &c.; 
that  nevertheless,  a  few  jears  later,  it  was  discovered  that 
these  things  were  errors,  and  a  revision  of  the  book  was 
made,   when    these   and    other    "Popish    inventions"   were 
omitted  by  the  advice  of  foreign  Lutherans ;  and  that  this 
Prayer-Book,   both  before  and  after  this  revision,   was  set 
forth  by  act  of  Parliament,  (carried  by  means  of  bribery  and 
corruption,)  and  fvrci'd  upon  the  clergy  and  laity  by  means 
of  ruinous  fines  and  imprisonments.      All  this  I  have  shewn 
by  the  testimony  of  a   Protestant  historian,   one  who   was 
greatly  interested  in  making  these  things  appear  in  the  best 
light,  and  who,  consequently,  has  not  mentioned  one  fourth 
part  of  the  ugly  things  which  were  done  in  that  day,  but 
who  was  compelled,  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  say  enough 
for  our  purpose. 

In  my  next  letter,  I  shall  speak  of  the  changes  which  took 
place  under  Queen  Mary  and  Queen  Elizabeth. 
^  A.  B. 


LETTER  II. 

Vain  attempt  of  the  Anglican  party  to  set  aside  Queen  Mary  on  account 
of  her  religion. — Laws  enjoining  the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book  repeal- 
ed, and  the  Catholic  Liturgy  restored. — Parliament  and  Convocation 
acknowledge  their  errors  and  obtain  absolution. — The  severities  of 
Mary's  reign  much  exaggerated,  and  were  mainly  inflicted  upon 
rebels  and  traitors. — Accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth. — She  conceals 
her  sentiments  at  first,  Imt  soon  begins  to  restore  the  Anglican  wor- 
shijJ. — She  is  made  supreme  governor  of  the  Church. — Her  subjects 
required  to  renounce  the  authority  of  the  Pope. — The  Bishops  refuse 
to  sanction  her  changes  and  are  driven  from  their  sees. — Tlie  Pi-ayer- 
Book  is  again  revised  aud  altered. — It  is  once  more  forced  upon  the 
nation. — Its  use  again  enforced  by  finesand  imprisonments. — Bloody 
persecutions  against  the  Catholics. — The  Puritans  appear  and  de- 
mand changes  in  the  Prayer-Book. — They  attain  to  power,  and 
abolish  the  Prayer-Book  and  establish  the  Directory  in  its  place. — 
Charles  II.  restored  to  the  throne,  and  the  Prayer-Book  once  more 
re-established. — Change  demanded  by  the  Non-Conformists. — A 
Conference  is  appointed  and  the  Prayer-Book  again  revised. — Th& 
clergy  refusing  to  use  it  are  ejected  from  their  livings. — Recapitula- 
tion of  changes  in  the  Prayer-Book. — Its  fortunes  ever  dependent  on 
the  will  of  Parliament. — Its  use  compulsory. — It  is  once  more  re- 
vised by  the  American  Convention  for  the  use  of  the  '' Pi-otestant 
Episcopal  Church." — Great  changes  then  made  in  it. 

My  Dear  Fkiexd  : 

In  the  foregoing  letter,  I  have  shown  yoti  that  the  Prayer- 
Book,  after  undergoing  various  changes,  finally  took  the 
form,  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Edward,  in  which  it 
is  now  found,  at  least  in  England.  Unfortunately  for  Cran- 
mer  and  his  co-laborers,  the  reign  of  that  young  king, 
(whose  ' '  little  finger  contained  more  divinity  than  tlieir 
whole  bodies,")  was  very  brief,  and  terminated  in  1553. 
The  Protestants  were  consec^uently  greatly  agitated  about 
the  succession,  as  the  Princess  Mary,  the  legitimate  heir  t* 
the  throne,  was  a  devout  Catholic.  It  was  well  known  that 
the  religion  of  the  country  depended  upon  that  of  the  Sove- 
reign. The  Protestants  had  acknowledged,  and  acted  tipou^ 
this  principle — first,  under  Hery  VIII.,  and  then  under 
Edward ;  and  they  naturally  looked  for  its  practical  opera- 
tions under  the  successor  of  Edward.      Should  they  have  a 

(26) 


L  E  T  T  K  K     II.  2T 

Catholic  for  their  Sovereign,  their  Protestant  work  would 
be  overthrown  and  the  Catholic  faith  and  worship  would  be 
restored.  This  was,  I  admit,  a  great  trial  to  their  virtue, — 
and  T  regret  to  say  they  were  not  equal  to  the  emergency. 
Mary  was  the  legitimate  heir  to  the  throne,  and  by  every 
principle  of  law,  order  and  justice,  the  Protestants  should 
have  instantly  acknowledged  her  sway.  But  instead  of  so 
doing,  they  set  up  Lady  Jane  Grey  as  Queen,  who  was  a 
Protestant — thus  committing  an  act  of  rebellion  and  treason 
for  the  sake  of  keeping  their  religion  dominant.  What  I  am 
stating  is  a  hi.storieal  fact,  one  that  cannot  be  denied,  how- 
ever it  may  be  suppressed  or  glossed  over  inmost  Protestant 
accounts  of  that  period.  In  this,  as  in  other  things,  I  am 
sustained  by  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Short,  who  commences 
his  history  of  the  reign  of  Mary  with  this  passage :  ' '  The 
sentiments  which  Mary  was  known  to  entertain  with  regard 
to  religion  induced  some  persons  to  question,  for  a  short 
time,  her  title  to  the  succession,  of  the  justice  of  which 
there  could  be  no  real  doubt."  (§  351.)  This  is  a  sufficient 
admission,  although  caiitiously  expressed,  for  the  sake  of  his 
own  cause.  His  assertion,  in  plainer  terms,  is,  that  they 
wished  to  set  her  aside  on  account  of  her  religion,  although 
there  was  no  real  doubt  of  her  title  to  the  throne.  Here 
again  we  see  the  English  Protestants  of  that  day,  acting 
upon  the  principle  that  "  the  end  justifies  the  means,"  at  the 
expense  of  law  and  justice.  We  find  them,  by  the  same 
act,  seeking  to  perpetuate  their  own  religion  by  setting  aside 
the  established  and  legitimate  order  of  the  civil  government — 
a  charge  so  often  made  in  the  present  day  against  Catholics. 
It  was  for  this  act  of  treason,  that  many  of  the  severe  pun- 
ishments of  Queen  Mary  were  inflicted,  and  not  from  a  mere 
spirit  of  persecution  against  Protestants,  although  it  should 
be  remembered  that  in  the  practice  of  persecution,  Mary 
only  followed  the  cruel  example  set  her  under  the  Protestant 
reigns  of  Henry  and  Edward. 

The  unjust  attempt  to  set  up  Lady  Jane  Grey  for  her  Pro- 
testant opinions,  was  soon  frustrated.  As  Short  remarks, 
' '  the  good  sense  and  loyalty  of  the  nation  quickly  rendered 
her  case  desperate."  (§  352.)  The  Protestant  preachers, 
especially  Ridley,  were  everywhere  zealous  in  advocating  her 
claims,  even  from  the  pulpit,  and  in  denouncing  IMary  and 
her  religion ;  and  the  nobles  who  had  fattened  upon  the 
spoils  of  the  churches  and  monasteries,  were  no  less  assidu- 


28  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

ous  in  supporting  her  pretensions.  But  their  violent  appeals 
were  in  vain.  The  great  mass  of  the  people  were  still  Cath- 
olic at  heart,  and  recognizing  the  justice  of  Mary's  claims, 
they  very  generally  rallied  to  her  support,  and  she  was  at 
once  firmly  established  on  the  throne. 

Although  the  cruel  persecutions  to  which  Queen  Mary  had 
been  subjected  under  her  brother  Edward,  and  the  unjust 
opposition  made  by  the  Protestant  party  to  her  assumption 
of  the  crown,  had  naturally  a  tendency  to  awaken  in  her  a 
spirit  of  revenge,  yet  she  seems  to  have  commenced  her  reign 
with  a  merciful  and  generous  disposition.  Her  proclama- 
tions breathed  a  sjiirit  of  moderation  and  charity  unknown 
during  the  two  previous  reigns.  To  the  authorities  of  Lon- 
don she  said  ' '  that  though  her  conscience  was  stayed  in 
matters  of  religion,  yet  she  meaneth  graciously  not  to  compel 
or  strain  other  people's  consciences,  otherwise  than  God  shall, 
as  she  trusteth,  put  in  their  hearts  a  persuasion  of  the  truth." 
But  these  liberal  sentiments  were  not  appreciated  in  that 
age,  and  the  Protestant  party,  so  long  accustomed  to  have 
things  their  own  way,  were  still  disposed  to  exalt  their  own 
religion,  and  not  to  tolerate  any  other.  Advantage  was 
taken  of  Mary's  forbearance.  And  when  an  aged  ecclesias- 
astic  ventured  to  celebrate  the  Catholic  worship  at  Smithfield, 
lie  was  insulted  by  the  crowd  and  censured  and  imprisoned  by 
the  authorities !  At  London,  also,  the  same  spirit  of  intol- 
erance was  exhibited.  When  Bourn,  a  chaplain  of  the 
Bishop,  preached  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  as  the  reformers  had 
previously  done,  a  great  tumult  was  raised,  in  which  Pro- 
testant clergymen  were  implicated,  stones  were  thrown  at 
the  preacher,  who  narrowly  escaped  with  his  life,  a  dagger 
having  been  hurled  at  his  head,  which  was  afterwards  found 
sticking  in  the  pulpit.  These  turbulent  proceedings  on  the 
part  of  the  Protestants  were  not  only  unjust ;  they  were  cal- 
culated to  involve  the  whole  country  in  disorder  and  civil 
war,  as  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  Catholics  would 
tamely  submit  to  such  outrages.  It  therefore  became  neces- 
sary for  Mai-y  to  interpose  her  authority.  And,  following 
the  example  set  her  by  the  two  last  monarchs,  she  issued  a 
proclamation  forbidding  all  preaching  in  public  without  a  li- 
cense, and  commanding  the  people  "  to  live  together  in  quiet 
sort  and  Christian  charity,  and  forbear  those  new-found 
devilish  terms  of  Papist  or  heretic  and  such  like." 


LETTER    II.  29 

It  being  known  that  the  royal  power  was  no  longer  em- 
ployed to  enforce  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Prayer-Book  and 
worship,  the  old  Catholic  ritual  was  spontaneously  restored 
in  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  churches.  This  foct  proved 
that  they  had  either  outwardly  conformed  to  the  new  liturgy 
from  mere  compulsion,  or  else  that  they  had  no  convictions 
and  no  conscience  in  the  matter,  but  merely  complied  in  a 
spirit  of  indifiference  with  any  and  every  form  of  religion 
which  might  be  most  agreeable  to  the  sovereign  for  the 
time  being.  At  the  coronation  of  the  queen,  the  ancient 
Catholic  ceremonial  was  revived,  and  Mass  was  celebrated 
by  Gardener,  assisted  by  ten  other  bishops. 

As  parliament  under  the  previous  reign  had  passed  laws 
abolishing  the  Catholic  worship,  and  enjoining  the  Protest- 
ant liturgy,  and  imposing  fines  and  imprisonments  upon  all 
who  should  presume  to  disobey,  it  became  necessary  to 
repeal  all  such  laws,  which  was  accordingly  done  by  act  of 
Parliament.  And  thus  the  very  same  authority  which  had 
so  recently  set  forth  and  established  the  Prayer-Book,  we  now 
see  abolishing  it,  and  restoring  the  ancient  form  of  worship. 
In  this  restoration  the  great  mass  of  the  bishops  and  clergy 
evidently  concurred,  for  at  the  meeting  of  the  Convocation, 
(which  was  the  synod  of  the  Church)  only  six  were  found  to 
oppose  the  restoration.  By  the  same  ecclesiastical  council, 
the  Protestant  catechi.sm,  which  had  been  set  forth  under  the 
previous  I'eign,  was  repudiated  as  "the  work  of  a  few  indi- 
viduals, which  had  been  falsely  palmed  upon  the  public,  as 
sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  the  clergy  in  Convocation." 
Here  then,  we  see  the  Church  authorities  returning  to  the  old 
mode  of  worship  as  soon  as  permitted  to  do  so,  and  renounc- 
ing the  new  system  of  Cranmer  as  a  fraud  and  imposture. 
What  could  show  more  clearly,  than  such  facts,  the  real  char- 
acter of  the  English  "Reformation,"  so-called? 

But  although  the  act  of  Parliament  establishing  the  Pro- 
testant worship  had  been  repealed,  and  the  Catholic  worship 
restored,  the  English  Church  was  not  yet  fully  admitted  to 
Catholic  unity.  You  will  remember  that  an  act  had  been 
passed  under  Henry  AT^II. ,  prohibiting  any  recognition  of  the 
authority  of  the  Pope.  This  act  was  still  in  force.  But  why 
was  it  not  repealed  ?  There  was  a  difficulty  in  the  way. 
Many  of  the  members  of  Parliament,  and  others  of  influence, 
had  become  possessed  of  a  vast  amount  of  Church  property, 
which,   you  remember,   Henry  bestowed  so    lavishly  upon 


30  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Limself  and  bis  favorites,  after  getting  the  old  Pope  out  of 
the  way.  These  persons  did  not  wish  to  see  that  authority 
revived  in  the  land,  as  they  knew  the  Pope  would  require 
them  to  make  restitution,  as  strict  justice  dictates,  in  all  such 
cases.  However,  after  much  delay  and  negotiation,  the 
difficulty  was  removed  by  compromise,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
property  thus  held  from  the  Church  had  in  some  instances 
been  passed  from  hand  to  hand,  the  holders  of  it  were  assured 
that  they  should  not  be  molested  in  their  possessions. 

Matters  being  now  arranged  for  an  entire  reconciliation 
with  Rome,  steps  were  at  once  taken  for  its  consummation. 
The  two  houses  of  Parliament  passed  a  resolution  praying 
the  King  and  Queen  to  intercede  for  them  with  the  Pope's 
legate,  so  that  the  kingdom  might  be  admitted  within  the 
pale  of  the  Church.  This  resolution  was  passed  almost 
unanimously,  no  one  dissenting  in  the  upper  house,  and  only 
two  in  the  lower,  out  of  three  hundred  members.  Their 
petition  was  couched  in  the  following  humble  terms  :  ' '  That 
whereas  they  had  been  guilty  of  a  most  horrible  defection 
and  schism  from  the  Apostolic  See,  they  did  now  sincerely 
repent  of  it ;  and  in  sign  of  their  repentance,  were  ready  to 
repeal  all  the  laws  made  in  prejudice  of  that  See :  therefore, 
since  the  king  and  queen  had  been  no  way  defiled  by  their 
schism,  they  pray  them  to  be  intercessors  with  the  legate  to 
grant  them  absolution,  and  to  receive  them  again  into  the 
bosom  of  the  Church."  The  two  houses  repaired  to  the 
royal  presence-chamber,  where  they  knelt  before  the  throne 
and  presented  their  humble  petition.  Their  }najesties  prompt- 
ly complied  with  the  petition,  and  forthwith  the  assembled 
members  kneeled  upon  their  knees,  and  received  fi-om  the 
legate  absolution  for  themselves  and  the  rest  of  the  kingdom, 
by  authority  of  Pope  Julius,  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ.  To 
the  sentence  of  absolution  the  nobles  and  commons  returned 
a  hearty  "  amen,"  and  then  proceeded  in  a  body  to  the  royal 
chapel,  and  there  chaunted  a  solemn  "  Te  Deum"  in  thanks- 
giving for  their  restoration  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church. 

Thus  you  see,  my  friend,  that  the  same  legislative  body 
which  a  few  years  before  put  forth  and  established  the  Book 
of  Common-Prayer,  "with  one  uniform  agreement  by  the 
aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  as  they  alleged,  afterwards  unani- 
mously repudiated  that  book  and  its  prescribed  worship,  and 
humbly,  upon  their  knees,  sought  and  obtained  absolution 
for  the  part  they  had  taken  in  its  establishment  in  the  land ! 


LETT  E  K     II 


31 


A  similar  act  of  ro-uiiioii  took  place  with  the  clerical  order. 
The  bishops  and  clergy  assembled  in  convocation,  knelt 
down  and  received  from  the  cardinal  legate  absolution  for 
their  "  perjuries,  schisms  and  heresies."  Thus  did  the  two 
highest  bodies  in  the  land,  the  civil  and  the  ecclesiastical, 
concur  with  the  sovereign  in  renouncing  the  work  of  their 
own  hands.  Thus  did  they  join  in  pronouncing  before  God 
and  the  world  a  most  emphatic  condemnation  upon  that  form 
of  worship  to  Avhich  their  children  have  since  returned. 
Surely  you  could  not  have  a  better  proof  that  a  work  is 
wrong,  than  is  furnished  when  its  own  authors,  after  due  trial, 
publicly  reject  it.  Thus  did  the  English  people,  upon  the 
accession  of  Queen  Mary,  solemnly  renounce  and  abolish  the 
Book  of  Common-Prayer,  and  re-establish  the  ancient  wor- 
ship, and  particularly  the  Hol)'^  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

Much  has  been  written  upon  the  cruel  persecutions  of  this 
queen,  who  is  commonly  designated  in  Protestant  histories 
as  ' '  bloody  Mary."  It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  attempt 
to  justify,  if  so  inclined,  the  severities  of  that  period.  But 
there  arc  several  important  facts  connected  with  the  subject 
which  may  be  mentioned  as  entitled  to  much  weight  with 
every  impartial  mind.  The  first  is,  that  the  reign  of  Mary 
was  not  characterised  by  as  much  cruelty  as  were  the  two 
preceding  Protestant  reigns,  nor  by  as  much  cruelty  as 
marked  the  subsequent  reign  of  the  Protestant  Queen  Eliza- 
beth. This  assertion  may  seem  strange  to  such  as  have  read 
only  the  Protestant  version  of  these  affairs,  or  the  menda- 
cious production  called  "  Fox's  Book  of  Martyrs."  But  its 
truth  cannot  be  questioned  by  any  one  fully  informed  upon  the 
subject.*  The  second  fact  is,  that  there  were  extenuating 
circumstances  connected  with  Mary's  severities  as  compared 
with  those  of  the  Protestant  sovereigns  who  preceded  and 
followed  her.     In  the  first  place,  she  had  herself  been  the 

*  There  have  been  many  histories  of  that  period  published  by  C;i- 
tholics,  to  wliich  I  nii^ht  refer  the  reader — but  in  Waterworths  His- 
torical Lectures  may  be  found  all  the  leadinfc  facts  of  the  "Reforma- 
tion"' given  upon  the  authority  of  Protestant  historians,  suchasKStrype, 
Hume,  Burnet,  &c.  Aiid  to  this  work  I  beg  to  refer  the  reader  who 
m.ay  wish  to  find  an  impartial  account  of  those  times  within  a  small 
compass.  The  number  of  victims  under  Mary,  according  to  the  state- 
ments of  Protestant  authors,  viz.,  Huniet  and  Strypc.  was  about  280. 
And  yet  Queen  Elizalieth  put  to  death  as  many  Catholic  priests,  be- 
sides a  larsjre  number  of  lavmen. 


32  LETTEKS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

victim  of  Protestant  cruelty  under  the  reign  of  her  brother 
Edward ;  and  her  own  mother,  Queen  Catharine,  had  been 
the  first  victim  of  Henry  VIII. 's  Protestantism,  when  she 
was  so  unjustly  divorced  fi-om  the  king  by  the  decision  of 
the  Protestant  Cranmer,  and  which  had  the  efiect  of  brand- 
ing Mary  herself  as  illegitimate.  I  do  not  say  that  these 
sufferings  of  Mary  at  the  hands  of  Frotestnnts,  justified  the 
severities  which  she  afterwards  exercised — but  I  say  they 
2)rovohed  them.  Something  must  be  allowed  to  the  weak- 
ness of  human  nature :  and  human  nature  will  not  suffer, 
ordinarily,  without  retaliating  when  the  opportunity  occurs. 
It  must  be  remembered  too,  that  Mary  only  followed  the 
examjile  which  was  set  her  by  her  Protestant  predecessors. 
The  "  fires  of  Smithfield,"  which  have  been  so  often  pointed 
to  as  a  proof  of  Catholic  cruelty,  were  first  kindled  by 
Protestants  themselves,  and  those  so-called  "Martyrs," 
Cranmer,  Latimer  and  Ridley,  only  suffered  the  fate  which 
they  had  inflicted  r.pon  others — a  fact  too  little  known  among 
Protestants.  As  a  third  fact,  it  should  be  remembered  that 
most  of  the  victims  under  Mary's  reign  were  punished,  not  for 
their  religious  opinions,  as  many  seem  to  think,  but  for  their 
crimes  against  the  State.  Thus,  some  suffered  for  their 
treason  in  setting  up  Lady  Jane  Grey  instead  of  the  legiti- 
mate sovereign — others,  for  their  rebellious  attempts  to  sub- 
vert the  throne,  on  various  subsequent  occasions — while 
others  again,  for  offences  against  good  order  and  morality, — 
committed  sometimes  under  the  pretext  of  religion.  In 
point  of  fact,  almost  the  entire  reign  of  Mary  was  character- 
ized by  plots,  seditions  and  insurrections,  fomented  by  her 
religious  opponents,  which,  while  they  deserved  punishment 
on  account  of  their  treasonable  character,  at  the  same  time 
were  calculated  to  excite  the  fears  of  the  queen  for  the  stabi- 
lity of  her  throne  and  the  safety  of  her  person,  and  hence 
to  prompt  her  to  resort  to  harsher  measures  than  would  have 
been  necessary   or  justifiable    in    different    circumstances.* 

» Perhaps  nothing  serves  to  render  Mary  more  cruel  and  "bloody" 
in  the  eyes  of  most  Protestants,  than  her  execution  of  Lady  Jane  Grey 
and  her"  husband.  I  still  recollect  the  painful  impression  it  made  upon 
my  own  mind,  in  my  younger  days.  And  yet  Mary  was  justified  by 
reasons  of  State,  in  tliat  severe  measure.  This  is  admitted  by  Bishop 
Short,  who  says,  "nor  can  we  venture  to  blame  her  for  the  execution 
of  these  young  persons  who  had  been  guilty  of  treason."  (§358.) 

That  tiie  Church  is  not  justly  chargeable  with  Mary's  severities,  is 
evident  from  the  following   remark  of  the  same  author:   "Had  she 


LKTTERII.  33 

There  remains  yet  anotber  fact  to  be  mentioned,  and  ■which 
appHes  to  most  of  the  persecutions  inflicted  in  Catholic  coun- 
tries at  different  periods:  that  is,  that  if  !!Mary  punished  men 
upon  rehgious  grounds,  slic  punished  them  fur  departing  from 
the  faith  and  worship  which  had  been  consecrated  by  ages  of 
use  all  the  world  over;  while  Henry  YIIL,  Edward,  Cran- 
mer,  Elizabeth  and  other  Protestants  persecuted  and  put 
to  death  their  victims  for  refusing  to  deny  the  faith  in  which 
they  had  been  brought  up,  the  faith  of  their  ancestors  for 
many  generations,  the  faith  of  the  whole  world,  and  for  re- 
jecting the  innovations  of  Protestantism. 

Let  all  the  foregoing  facts  be  duly  considered,  together 
with  the  many  wise  and  beneficial  acts  of  Queen  Mary's 
reign,  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  she  will  compare  favora- 
bly with  either  her  father,  her  brother,  or  her  sister,  or  any 
other  Protestant  sovereign  of  that  age.  The  fact  is,  that  in 
that  age,  the  right,  and  indeed  the  duty,  to  persecute,  was 
universally  recognized,  by  both  Catholics  and  Protestants. 
Both  parties  did  it  when  they  had  the  power :  so  that  the 
only  question  is,  which  was  the  more  guilty  of  the  two :  and 
that  question  must  be  decided  by  the  circumstances  of  each 
case.  Much  of  the  odium  attached  to  Clary's  name,  in  the 
estimation  of  Protestants,  is  doubtless  owing  to  the  execution 
of  Cranmer,  Latimer  and  Ridley, — the  three  great  pillars  of 
the  new  religion  under  Henry  and  Edward.  In  the  course 
of  these  letters,  I  shall  take  occasion  to  delineate  the  real 
character  of  these  men,  and  to  show  by  Protestant  authority, 
that  they  are  by  no  means  worthy  of  the  canonization  which 
they  have  received  in  the  Protestant  world.  And  therefore, 
for  the  present,  I  shall  merely  remark  that  two  of  these  men, 
if  not  the  third  also,  had  been  guilty  of  high  treason  against 
the  queen,  and  on  that  ground  had  justly  forfeited  their 
lives — and  that,  say  what  you  can  of  their  merits,  far  better 
men  were  put  to  death  for  the  Catholic  fiiith,  by  Henry, 
Edward  and  Elizabeth.* 

followed  the  advice  of  Cardinal  Pole,  she  would  probabl^y  have  avoid- 
ed many  of  these  enormities,"  &c.  (§  3T5.)  And  again,  he  says: 
"The  cruelties  of  the  late  reign,  (Mary's,)  had  gone  far  beyond  the 
wishes  of  the  more  violent  of  the  Roman  Catholics."   (?  401.) 

*  There  are  many  points  of  pleasing  contrast  between  Mary  and  these 
Protestant  sovereigns,  challenging  the  admiration  of  every  moralist — 
but  one  only  I  desire  to  mention  in  this  note.  While  Eenry,  Edward 
and  Elizabeth  seized  upon  houses  and  lands  which  had  been  dedicated 


34  LETTERS     TO     A  I?    EPISCOPALIAN. 

I  liave  now  shewn  you  how  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
was  originally  compiled  from  Catholic  sources — how  it  was 
afterwards  materially  changed  again  and  again,  to  suit  the 
changing  views  of  the  innovators,  miscalled,  "Reformers," 
until  it  assumed  the  shape  in  which  it  now  appears  ;  and  how, 
under  Mary,  it  was  abolished  and  rejntdiated  by  the  highest 
authorities  in  Church  and  State,  and  the  ancient  Catholic 
worship  re-established  in  all  the  churches  of  the  land. 

But  with  the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  came  another 
revolution  in  religion  ;  and  under  her  auspices,  the  Prayer- 
Book  so  recently  repudiated,  is  again  revived  and  forced 
upon  the  Church.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  relate  the  meas- 
ures and  means  by  which  this  extraordinary  change  was 
eflFected. 

Elizabeth's  education  had  been  partly  Catholic  and  partly 
Protestant.  During  her  father's  reign,  her  religion  partook 
more  of  the  former  character — but  under  her  brother  Ed- 
ward, more  of  the  latter.  And  when  her  sister  Mary  became 
queen,  Elizabeth  after  being  duly  instructed,  declared  herself 
a  convert  to  the  old  faith,  and  thenceforth  accompanied  her 
sister  to  Mass,  and  opened  a  chapel  in  her  own  house  for  its 
celebration.  She  seems  to  have  continued  in  the  Catholic 
profession  throughout  the  reign  of  Mary,  and  at  the  time  of 
her  sister's  death,  when  she  was  exhorted  by  her  to  persevere 
in  the  old  religion,  she  is  reported  to  have  "  prayed  God  that 
the  earth  might  open  and  swallow  her  up  alive,  if  she  were 
not  a  true  Roman  Catholic."  But  notwithstanding  this 
solemn  protestation,  she  had  hardly  ascended  the  throne  when 
she  gave  indications  of  an  intention  to  favor  the  Protestant 
cause — and  a  scheme  for  this  purpose  was  immediately  form- 
ed, although  it  was  kept  secret  for  the  present.  But  in  the 
meanwhile,  she  did  not  hesitate  to  conform,  outwardly,  to 
the  Catholic  faith — for  a  month  after  her  accession,  she  at- 
tended the  funeral  obsequies  of  her  sister,  performed  accord- 
ing to  the  Catholic  Ritual, — and  ten  days  later,  she  ordered 

to  religion,  Mary,  as  far  as  she  could,  faithfully  restored  them,  and 
employed  her  own  revenues  in  founding  charitable  institutions.  Upon 
this  point,  hear  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Short — speaking  of  Mary,  he 
says  :  "  Her  foundations  were  made  out  of  the  revenues  of  the  crown, 
and  instead  of  making  a  gain  of  godliness,  as  was  the  general  plan  of 
the  Reformation,  she  offered  not  up  unto  the  Lord,  of  that  which  cost 
her  nothing."  (I  375,  note.)  Here  is  an  admission  from  a  Protestant 
Bishop,  not  only  as  to  Mary,  but  as  to  the  "Reformation  !" 


LKTTERII.  35 

a  Mass  of  requiem  to  be  celebrated  for  the  repose  of  the  soul 
of  Charles  V.,  at  which  she  was  present,  and  received  the 
cmnmnnion.  But  the  bishops  of  the  Church  suspected  her 
sincerity,  and  hence  they  unanimously  refused  to  take  any 
part  in  the  religious  ceremony  of  her  coronation,  as  the  Ca- 
tholic ritual  provided  for  such  cases,  could  not  have  been 
consistently  used  for  any  one  not  really  a  Catholic.  But, 
after  some  delay,  one  of  the  bishops,  Oglethorpe,  was  pre- 
vailed ixpou  to  perform  the  ceremony,  and  as  usual  Mass  was 
said,  and  the  ijueen  received  the  communion,  and  took  an 
oath  to  maintain  the  laws  and  privileges  of  the  Chm-ch  !  All 
this  time  she  was  evidently  at  heart  a  Protestant,  al- 
though acting  as  a  Catholic  !  Whether  her  friendship  for  the 
new  religion  was  the  result  of  conviction,  or  the  dictate  of 
policy,  has  been  much  discussed — but  many  have  ascribed  it 
to  the  latter  cause.  As  she  was  the  illegitimate  child  of 
Henry,  the  Pope  refused  to  sanction  her  assumption  of  the 
crown  ;  hence,  both  her  inclinations  and  her  interests  prompt- 
ed her,  as  in  the  case  of  her  father,  to  renounce  the  autho- 
rity and  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope.  Here  we  see  another 
proof  tliat  the  great  religious  changes  of  these  times,  were 
generally  brought  about  by  the  passions  and  interests  or 
inclination  of  the  reigning  sovereign.  Had  the  Pope  ac- 
knowledged the  right  of  Elizabeth  to  the  crown,  there  is  but 
little  doubt  that  the  Catholic  religion  would  have  continued 
to  be  the  established  religion  of  England,  not  only  during 
her  reign,  but  down  to  the  present  time. 

Elizabeth,  as  soon  as  firmly  established  on  the  throne,  set 
about  the  work  of  again  changing  the  faith  and  worship  of 
the  nation.  She  commenced  by  issuing  a  proclamation,  for- 
bidding any  one  to  preach  in  public  without  a  special  license 
from  her — thus  declaring  that  her  own  religious  opinions 
were  to  be  the  standard  to  which  all  were  in  future  to  con- 
form. Soon  afterwards  she  issued  a  second  proclamation,  to 
restrain  over-zealous  Protestants  whom  she  considered  too 
hasty  in  making  changes  in  the  mode  of  worship — but 
granting  permission  to  use  certain  parts  of  the  service  in 
English.  Like  her  father,  she  had  a  will  of  her  own,  and 
she  was  determined  that  both  Catholics  and  Protestants  should 
conform  to  it, — deeming  herself,  as  he  had  done  before,  a 
better  theologian  than  all  the  bishops  in  Christendom,  with 
the  Pope  at  their  head  !  You,  my  friend,  must  feel  as  con- 
scious of  the  inconsistency  and  absurdity  of  such  asssump- 
4* 


36  LETTERS    TO    AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 

tions  on  tlie  part  of  any  lay  person,  especially  a  female,  as  I 
do.  And  yet  it  is  to  such  assumptions  that  you  owe  your 
Prayer-Book,  and  youi'  present  unhappy  separation  from  the 
Catholic  fold. 

As  the  old  religion  was  protected  by  the  laws  of  the  land,, 
certain  legislation  became  necessary  before  the  queen  could 
well  carry  out  her  designs.  Measures  were  immediately 
taken  to  secure  the  return  of  such  persons  to  Parliament  aa- 
would  favor  the  intended  changes.  At  the  opening  of  Par- 
liament, the  queen  assisted  in  state,  at  a  solemn  high  Mass — 
but  by  a  singular  inconsistency,  a  sermon  was  preached  by  a 
Protestant.  It  may  be  mentioned  as  an  evidence  of  the 
temper  of  the  queen  and  her  friends  in  Parliament,  that  the 
first  bill  passed  was  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  to  her  use 
the  revenues  and  abbey  lands  which  Queen  Mary  had  honestly 
and  fi-eely  surrendered  to  the  Church ;  thus,  as  bishop  Short 
admits,  "making  a  gain  of  godliness,  as  was  the  general 
plan  of  the  Reformation."  The  next  step  was  to  abolish 
the  authority  of  the  Poj^e.  For  this  purpose,  Parliament 
passed  an  act  reviving  the  statutes  of  Henry  VIII. ,  making 
the  sovereign,  supreme  governor  in  the  realm,  as  u-ell  in 
spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  tilings  as  in  temporal.  And  in 
order  to  give  this  act  effect,  it  was  required  that  an  oath 
should  be  taken  by  all  ecclesiastical  persons,  and  by  judges 
and  other  civil  officers,  abjuring  all  foreign  ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  acknowledging  the  sole  supremacy  of  Eliza- 
beth in  Church  as  well  as  State.  And  it  was  further  en- 
acted, that  if  any  such  person  should  refuse  to  take  said 
oath,  he  should  instantly  forfeit  his  preferment  or  office.* 
Thus,  it  was  only  necessary  to  tender  this  oath  to  the  Catho- 
lic, and  he  was  at  once  compelled  to  give  up  either  his  office 
or  his  religion.  But  even  this  did  not  satisfy  the  intolerant 
spirit  of  the  queen  and  her  coadjutors.  It  was  further  en- 
acted that  if  any  person  should  afterwards  advocate,  either 
in  discourse  or  in  writing,  any  foreign  authority,  (that  is, 
the  authority  of  the  Pope,)  he  should  forfeit  all  his  goods 
and  chattels,  for  the  first  offence;  and  for  the  third  offence, 
he  should  incur  the  penalty  of  treason,  which  was  to  be  hung 
by  the  neck,  cut  down,  have  the  bowels  torn  out  while  alive, 
and  then  to  be  decapitated !  Such  was  the  mild  code  of  the 
maiden  queen,   so  much  extolled  in  modern  times !     Such 

*See  Hallam's  Constitutional  Ilistory  of  Englaml,  vol.  I.  chap.  3. 


LETTER     II.  37 

was  the  cruel  means  by  which  Catholics  were  almost  exter- 
minated in  that  land,  and  the  old  worship  abolished  and  the 
new  introduced  in  its  place.  This  monstrous  oath,  an  oath 
which  struck  at  the  very  root  of  Catholic  conscience  and 
Catholic  taith,  an  oath  which  hardly  any  Protestant  of  the 
present  day  would  venture  to  take,  (for  who  would  acknow- 
ledge a  female  to  be  the  supreme  governor  of  the  Church,) 
this  oath  was  tendered  to  the  bishops,  but  they  all,  with  a 
solitary  exce2)tion,*  refused  to  take  it,  pi'eferring,  in  the 
spirit  of  the  martyr,  to  brave  the  terrors  of  men,  rather 
than  to  prove  reci-eant  to  their  God.  As  a  consequence, 
they  were  forthwith  ejected  from  their  sees  and  sent  to  pri- 
son, where  some  of  them  sj^ent  the  remainder  of  their  days 
in  a  lingering  punishment,  while  a  few  were  afterwards  libe- 
rated, and  either  escaped  to  the  continent,  or  sought  a  place 
of  retirement  at  home.  The  removal  of  the  bishops  from 
their  sees,  is  a  vei-y  important  event  in  the  history  of  the  so- 
called  "  Kefin-mation."  It  shows  clearly  the  origin  and  char- 
acter of  that  movement — it  was  a  mere  state  affair — the 
queen  and  court  willed  it,  and  therefore  it  was  done.  Thus 
the  second  and  last  establishment  of  the  new  religion  in 
England,  like  its  first  origin  under  Henry  YIII.,  was  effect- 
ed by  the  civil  power,  and  against  the  convictions  and  pro- 
testations of  the  bishops,  and  spiritual  authorities.  The  in- 
justice and  unlawfulnes  of  a  change  thus  made,  must  be  ap- 
parent even  to  the  most  radical  Protestant  of  the  present 
day;  but  to  you,  my  friend,  who  regard  the  bishops  as  the 
true  and  only  lawful  rulers  of  the  Church,  it  must  appear 
doubly  wrong  and  iniquitous.  Certainly  it  was  not  an  Epis- 
copalian movement,  as  it  was  not /r>/%  but  against,  the  pre- 
lates. Elizabeth  usurped  the  authority,  not  only  of  the 
Pope,  but  of  the  bishops  too,  and  employed  that  authority  in 
introducing  and  establishing  the  new  worship.  A  change 
thus  effected,  cannot  be  called  a  "Reformation'' — it  was  a 
rehdlion — it  was  a  sacrilegious  usurpation,  which  cannot  be 
justified  by  any  num  who  has  a  particle  of  regard  for  Church 
authority.  What  would  you  say,  if  a  similar  change  were 
carried  out  in  your  Church  now.     There  is  a  large  party 

*  The  unhappy  man  who  yielded  to  his  fears  and  his  interests,  was 
Kitchin,  liishop  of  Llandaff,  who,  having  again  and  again  changed  his 
religion  at  tiie  bidding  of  the  sovereign,  was  disposed  to  be  equally 
accommodating  towards  Elizabeth. 


g[S:  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

among  you  who  would  like  to  see  soiue  things  in  the  Prayer- 
Book  altered.  Now,  imagine  that  some  civil  ruler  were  to 
arise,  and  driving  your  bishops  away,  proceed  to  change  your 
form  of  worship,  abolishing  some  doctrines  and  introducing 
others.  What  would  you  say  to  such  a  movement :  would 
you  not  refuse  to  submit  to  it,  and  denounce  it  as  rebellious 
and  schismatical  ?  Unqestiouably  you  would.  And  does 
not  consistency  require  you  to  pronounce  the  same  judgment 
upon  the  religious  change  made  by  Elizabeth  V  That  the 
change  was  efi'ected  in  opposition  to  the  Church,  is  evident, 
not  only  from  the  refusal  of  the  bishops  to  take  the  prescribed 
oath,  but  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Convocation,  which  was 
the  synod  of  the  Church.  This  body,  composed  of  bishops 
and  clergy,  assembled  at  the  same  time  as  Parliament,  and 
proceeded  to  draw  up  a  declaration  of  faith,  in  regard  to 
certain  points,  at  that  time  impugned  by  the  civil  power. 
In  this  declaration  they  declared  their  belief  in  Transubstan- 
tiation,  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  the  authority  of  the 
Pope.  This  proves,  indubitably,  that  the  Church  in  Eng- 
land believed  then,  as  it  did  before  Henry  VIII. 's  time, — 
although  the  most  violent  measures  had  been  employed  for 
nearly  thirty  years  to  extirpate  the  old  faith.  It  proves, 
indubitably,  that  the  English  "  Keformation"  as  finally 
settled  by  Elizabeth,  was  not  made  by  the  Church,  but  by 
the  State,  and  against  the  Church — made  by  brute  force, 
and  not  by  ecclesiastical  authority, — in  one  word,  it  was  a 
wicked  rebellion  against  the  bishops  and  pastors  of  the 
Church.  And  if  the  authority  of  the  Church  can  be  thus 
set  aside  by  laymen  or  women,  and  essential  changes  intro- 
duced as  their  fancies  may  dictate,  it  is  all  folly  to  call  upon 
men  to  "Hear  the  Church,"  "Revere  the  Church,"  or  "Obey 
the  Church,"  as  some  Episcoj^alians  do.  It  is  also,  very 
inconsistent  to  censure  the  Presbyterians  or  the  Methodists, 
or  others,  for  separating  from  the  Anglican  Church,  as  they 
only  followed  the  example  of  the  authors  of  the  "  Reforma- 
tion." How  can  they  who  originated  in  schism,  condemn 
others  for  this  offence  V 

The  bishops  having  been  driven  from  their  sees,  and  the 
queen  invested  with  supreme  power  in  the  Church,  if  it  can 
now  be  called  a  Church,  the  dominant  party  proceeded  to 
change  the  forms  of  public  worship.  A  committee  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  civil  autlinrity  to  review  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer.      Of  this  book  there  were  two  editions,  called 


L  E  T  T  E  R      1  r  .  3^ 

respectively,  the  First  and  Second  Book  of  Edward  VI., 
which  have  been  ah-eady  mentioned  in  a  previous  letter. 
The  queen  was  in  favor  of  adojtting  the  former,  as  it  depart- 
ed less,  in  some  points,  from  the  ohJ  religion,  and  retained 
certain  ceremonies  to  which  she  was  attached.  But  in  com- 
pliance with  the  wishes  of  persons  who  desired  greater 
changes,  the  Second  Book  of  Edward  was  adopted.  But 
this  book,  although  originally  set  forth  "  by  the  aid  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  and  afterwards  again  and  again  revised  and 
amended,  was  yet  very  imperfect  in  the  estimation  of  the 
queen  and  her  advisers.  Certain  alterations  were  therefore' 
made  in  it,  before  its  use  was  authorised.  These  alterations 
were  made  in  the  lessons,  in  the  litany  and  in  the  commu- 
nion service.  In  the  litany  of  the  Second  Book  of  Edward, 
there  was  found  a  petition  to  be  delivered  from  the  ' '  tyranny 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  all  his  detestable  enormities." 
But  in  the  revision  x;nder  Elizabeth,  this  petition  was 
stricken  out.  Whether  this  petition  was  originally  inserted 
by  the  "aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  or  now  omitted  by  that 
divine  assistance,  I  shall  leave  to  those  more  interested  in 
such  questions  to  determine.  The  alteration  in  the  commu- 
nion s"irvice  consisted  in  the  addition  of  another  sentence  to 
be  used  by  the  minister  in  delivering  the  sacrament,  as 
"Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for 
thee,"  &c.  They  also  expunged  a  rubric  at  the  end  of  the 
service,  by  which  it  was  declared  that  kneeling  at  the  sacra- 
ment was  not  for  the  purpose  of  adoration.  Some  of  these 
changes  appear  to  have  been  made  at  the  wish  of  the  queen 
in  order  to  conciliate  the  Catholics,  that  they  might  the  more 
readily  be  beguiled  into  a  compliance  with  her  innovations. 
The  book  being  now  amended  to  suit  the  notions  then 
prevalent,  there  was  only  one  thing  wanting  to  introduce  it 
once  more  into  the  parish  churches.  Parliament  must  au- 
thorise it, — for  every  thing,  you  know,  was  then  done  by 
act  of  Parliament.  That  body  seems  to  have  been  invested 
with  a  species  of  omnipotence  in  those  days,  by  which  it 
could  make  or  unmake  a  religion,  or  alter  or  amend  it 
at  pleasure.  Although  it  must  be  admitted  that  their  contra- 
dictory changes  did  not  give  evidence  of  infallibility.  Oa 
the  15th  of  February,  a  bill  was  introduced  into  Parliament, 
for  the  restoration  of  the  P^nglish  liturgy ;  but  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  measure  was  so  great  that  it  was  laid  aside,  until 
the  18th  of  April,  when  it  was  pushed  through  the  Lower 


40  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

House.  But  in  the  House  of  Lords  it  encountered  determined 
opposition;  the  whole  bench  ofhisliops  and  several  lay  peers  be- 
ing arrayed  against  it.  But  after  a  contest  of  ten  days,  it  was 
passed  only  by  a  small  majority,  notwithstanding  the  irresist- 
ible influence  of  the  throne  was  enlisted  in  its  favor.  By  this 
act  it  was  provided  that  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  should  be 
used  in  all  places  of  public  worship,  from  and  after  the  festival 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  next  ensuing.  And  this,  remember, 
was  not  a  regulation  passed  by  some  ecclesiastical  body,  to 
be  followed  or  not  as  each  clergyman  might  deem  it  his 
duty.  It  was  an  act  of  Parliament,  the  highest  legislature 
in  the  land,  and  sanctioned  by  the  queen.  It  was  a  positive 
and  absolute  law,  as  much  so  as  the  supreme  authority  of 
the  State  could  make  it.  And  such  was  not  only  its  inten- 
tion, but  such  was  its  practical  operation.  I  showed  you 
in  a  former  letter,  how  this  book  was  forced  upon  the 
Churches  by  means  of  fines  and  penalties,  under  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI.  And  I  have  now  to  set  before  you  a  repe- 
tition of  this  intolerant  and  iniquitous  measure.  The  queen 
and  her  "  reforming"  clique  were  determined  to  abolish  the 
ancient  worship,  which  had  been  re-established  under  Mary, 
and  to  require  the  Book  of  Common-Prayer,  and  no  other 
service,  to  be  used  throughout  the  land.  For  this  purpose, 
the  penal  code  of  Edward  VI.  was  revived.  By  this  barba- 
rous legislation,  it  was  enacted,  that  if  any  minister  used 
any  other  service  than  that  prescribed  in  said  book,  whether 
publicly  or  privately,  he  should,  for  the  first  offence,  forfeit 
one  year's  income  and  be  imprisoned  six  months  ;  for  the 
second  offence  he  was  to  be  deprived  of  his  benefice  or 
parish,  and  imprisoned  a  whole  year — and  should  he  venture 
to  lay  aside  the  Prayer  Book  for  some  other  service  a  third 
time,  he  was  to  go  to  prison  and  remain  there  the  rest  of  his 
days  !  Similar  penalties  were  denounced  against  any  cler- 
gyman who  should  even  utter  a  word  in  disparagement  of 
that  book  !*  Such  was  the  horrid  means  by  which  the  book 
was  forced  a  second  time  upon  the  Churches  of  the  land — 
Catholic  priests  were  compelled  to  use  it  in  Catholic  Chui'ch- 
es,  or  accept  the  dreadful  alternative  of  spending  their  days 
in  a  loathsome  prison.     Churches  built  by  Catholic  contri- 

■■■This  outrageous  "Act  of  Uniformity,"  as  it  is  entitled,  I  find 
published  in  an  English  edition  of  the  Prayer-Book,  printed  at  Oxford 
in  1721. 


1.  K  T  T  E  H     I  I  .  41 

butions,  and  for  the  ancient  worship,  were  thenceforth  ap- 
propriated by  arbitrary  and  despotic  power,  to  the  newly 
invented  service.  In  order  to  carry  out  this  tyrannical  act, 
commissioners  were  sent  forth  by  royal  authority  to  visit 
every  part  of  the  country,  and  enforce  the  new  order.  If 
they  found  any  clergyman  officiating  according  to  the  ancient 
rites,  he  was  immediately  ordered  to  prison.  Or,  if  they 
found  any  clergyman  who  was  suspected,  they  at  once  ten- 
dered him  the  oath  acknowledging  the  queen's  supremacy 
over  the  Church — if  he  declined  taking  it,  severer  punish- 
ment still  befell  him  I  What  proportion  of  the  clergy  yielded 
to  the  terrors  of  this  ruthless  treatment,  it  is  difficult  to  tell, 
precisely — perhaps  about  one-half.  But  we  know  that  all 
the  bishops,  with  a  solitary  exception,  steadfastly  refused  to 
bow  down  to  the  idol  of  the  queen,  as  did  also  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  higher  ecclesiastics, — such  as  abbots,  arch- 
deacons and  prebendaries, — all  of  whom  consequently  incur- 
red the  penalties  of  this  wicked  and  cruel  enactment.  The 
courageous  refusal  of  the  bishops  and  superior  clergy  to  use 
the  Book  of  Common-Prayer,  in  spite  of  the  dreadful  alter- 
native awaiting  them,  is  a  very  important  fact  in  the  history 
of  that  production.  Certainly  it  is  one  that  ought  to  have 
great  weight  with  every  Episcopalian,  every  individual  who 
believes  in  the  government  of  the  Church  by  bishops.  He 
is  bound  to  admit,  by  his  own  principles,  that  to  ojipose  the 
bishops  in  a  matter  essentially  afl'ecting  the  worship  and 
order  of  the  Church,  is  to  commit  an  act  of  schism.  Here, 
then,  was  such  opposition  to  the  bishops — and  not  merely 
opposition,  but  rebellion  against  their  authority;  a  rebellion 
doubl}'  aggravated  by  the  removal  of  these  prelates  from  their 
sees.  Certainly,  this  was  a  most  flagrant  act  of  schism. 
And  if  there  was  schism  in  the  change  as  originally  made, 
there  is  necessarily  schism  in  the  per2)etuation  of  that  change, 
involving  all  who  have  since  adhered  to  it,  and  who  now 
adhere  to  it.* 

*  Episcopalian  writers  arguing:  against  Prcsbj-terians  and  others  who 
reject  the  order  of  bishops,  commonly  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  St. 
Ignatius,  who,  in  his  ejiistles,  so  strenuously  exhorts  to  obedience  and 
submission  to  them.  Thus,  they  cite  him  as  saying:  ''.See  that  ye 
all  follow  your  bi.shop  as  Jesus  Christ  the  Father."  Did  the  authors 
of  the  "Church  of  England''  do  this?  Not  they.  They  followed 
the  cjueen,  and  sent  their  bi.shoi>3  adrift !  In  view  of  this  fact,  let 
them  duly  consider  that  other  passage,  from  St.  Ignatius,  often  quoted 


42  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

But  I  have  yet  to  notice  another  persecuting  measure 
which  was  adopted  in  order  to  force  the  Prayer-Book  upon 
the  nation.  It  did  not  fully  answer  the  purpose  to  compel 
the  clergy  to  use  this  service  and  no  other  ;  so  long  as  the  peo- 
ple were  at  liberty  to  absent  themselves  from  the  churches, 
its  use  was  confined  to  the  minister,  whose  voice  was  echoed 
by  empty  walls.  Hence  it  became  necessary  to  compel  the 
people  to  attend  the  churches  and  join  in  the  new  service. 
For  this  purpose.  Parliament  passed  an  act  requiring  all 
persons  diligently  to  resort  to  the  parish  church  on  Sundays 
and  other  holidays,  and  "  there  to  abide  orderly  and  soberly 
during  the  time  of  the  common  prayer,  preaching,  or  other 
service  of  God,  on  pain  of  punishment  by  the  censures  of 
the  Church,  and  also  on  pain  of  forfeiting  for  every  such 
offence  12(:?."  And  if  any  refused  to  pay  this  fine  for  non- 
attendance,  his  goods  were  distressed.  Behold,  then,  the 
means  by  which  your  Prayer-Book  was  brought  into  use  and 
made  to  supplant  that  venerable  service  of  antiquity  still 
celebrated  in  our  Catholic  temples — fines  and  imprisonments, 
loss  of  property,  loss  of  ofiice,  loss  of  personal  liberty.  The 
poor  clergyman  had  to  use  the  Prayer-Book  or  lose  his  ofiice 
and  go  to  prison ;  the  layman  had  to  be  present  at  its  use  or 
submit  to  a  fine  for  every  absence  !  Such  were  the  argu- 
ments employed  by  men  whom  you  have  been  taught  to  vene- 
rate as  the  authors  or  restorers  of  a  "  purer  faith  !"  Of 
toleration  they  knew  nothing  and  allowed  nothing.  "  Con- 
form or  suffer, "  was  their  language- to  all.  To  the  clergy  it 
was,  "the  Prayer-Book  or  a  prison;"  to  the  layman  it  was, 
"  the  Prayer-Book  or  your  property."  Not  the  least  regard 
was  paid  to  any  nian's  conscientious  scruples  ;  high  and  low, 
rich  and  poor,  men  and  women,  old  and  young,  all  were 
driven  to  the  parish  church  like  a  flock  of  sheep,  to  have  the 
Prayer-Book  forced  down  their  throats,  however  much  it  was 
loathed  and  abhorred. 

Many  persons  are  accustomed  to  look  upon  that  period  as 
the  dawn  of  light,  and  the  rise  of  liberty.  You  see,  my 
friend,  in  the  facts  which  I  have  stated  what  sort  of  light 
and  what  sort  of  liberty  it  was  which  then  fell  to  the  lot  of 
England.     It  was  not  light  which  drew  the  people  to  the 

by  "writers  on  Episcopacy:  "Be  not  deceived,  brethren,  if  any  one 
follows  him  that  makes  a  schism  in  the  Church,  he  shall  not  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God." 


LKTTEK    II. 


43 


parish  churcli ;  it  ^Yas  simply  the  strong  arm  of  power.  It 
was  not  liberty,  but  despotism  of  the  most  grinding  charac- 
ter violating  men's  consciences,  and  compelling  them,  by 
fines  and  imprisonments,  to  take  part  in  a  service  which  they 
detested,  and  denying  them  the  small  privilege  of  worshipping 
God  according  to  their  consciences,  even  in  their  own  domi- 
cils  The  ancient  Catholic  worship  was  not  tolerated  any 
where  ;  it  was  banished  alike  from  the  churches  which  had 
been  erected  for  its  celebrution,  and  from  the  domestic  altar. 
Sir  Edward  Waldgrave  and  his  lady  were  sent  to  prison  tor 
havin*^  Mass  said  in  their  own  house !  Many  others  who 
vcntur'ed  to  disobey  the  tyrant,  were  punished  in  the  same 

^  But  this  is  not  all :   severer  measures  yet  were  adopted  in 
regard  to  those  Catholics,  who  continued  faithful  to  their  re- 
lir^on    and  who  had  been  unable  to  flee  from  the  country  as 
m°ny'did.     As  the  Queen  and   her  advisers   professed  to 
have  discovered  the  primitive  truth,   and  to  enjoy  greater 
light    and  to  possess  a  purer  faith  than  the   ' '  benighted  pa- 
pists," we  should  naturally  expect  to  see  them,  under  this 
superior  influence,  progressing  towards  sentiments  of  charity 
and  toleration.     But  on  the  contrary,  we  see  quite  the  re- 
verse     The  cruel   act  by  which   priests  and  laymen  were 
doomed  to  punishment  unless  they  used  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  was   passed   in   1559.     After  the   lapse   of  several 
years,  that  is,  in  15G3,  an  act  was  passed  by  which  the  pre- 
vious act  was  ffreatly  enlarged  and  extended,   so  that  the 
oath  against  the  Pope  might  be  tendered  also  to  attorneys, 
teachers,   and  in  fact  to  all  who  should  disapprove  of  the 
established  worship,  or  celebrate  any  private  Mass,  and  such 
as  refused  to  take  it,  were  to  be  deprived  of  their  goods  and 
sent  to  prison,   and  if  afterwards  they  refused  it  a  second 
time,  they  were  to  be  deemed  guihy  of  high  treason,  and  to 
be  put  to  death  I     Subsequently  other  penal  laws  were  passed, 
denouncing  severe  punishments  against  any  one  who  should 
practice  the  Catholic  religion,  or  teach  it  or  be  taught  it,  and 
denouncing  death  against  any  one  who  should  ordain  a  priest, 
and  death  against  any  priest  who  should  come  into  the  coun- 
try from  abroad,  and  death  against  any  one  who  should  har- 
bor such  a  priest !     What  a  bloody  code  was  this !     AVho 
can  think  of  it  without  a  shudder  ?     And  sanguinary  as  it 
was.  it  was  literally  carried  out.     Every  means  was  resorted 
to  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  those  who  still  adhered  to 
5 


44  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  old  worship.  An  Inquisition  was  instituted,  modelled 
after  the  Spanish  Inquisition.*  It  was  called  the  Court  of 
High  Commission,  and  was  composed  mainly  of  Protestant 
Bishops.  They  had  the  power  to  invade  private  houses,  and 
drag  before  them  Catholics,  and  to  extort  from  them  by  the 
agonies  of  the  rack,  a  confession  of  their  belief.  Under  the 
operation  of  so  sanguinary  a  system,  the  Catholics,  priests 
and  laymen,  were  almost  exterminated  by  the  end  of  Eliza- 
beth's reign. f  Under  subsequent  reigns  the  same  war  of 
extermination  was  carried  on  more  or  less,  for  the  penal  laws 
against  Catholics  in  England  continued  in  force  until  quite 
a  recent  period ;  and  even  now,  the  Catholics  of  the  coun- 
try, are  not  allowed  a  civil  equality  with  Protestants.  No 
Catholic  is  eligible  to  the  English  crown,  and  were  Queen 
Victoria  to  become  a  Catholic,  after  the  example  of  many 
of  her  distinguished  subjects  in  late  years,  she  would  be  driv- 
en from  her  throne. 

But  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  write  the  history  of  the  bloody 
persecutions  by  which  the  old  religion  was  abolished  in  those 
days.  I  have  only  to  refer  to  them  as  far  as  they  were  the 
means  of  bringing  the  Prayer-Book  into  use,  instead  of  the 
Catholic  Missal.  You  see  now,  my  friend,  that  it  was  done 
by  the  civil  power,  against  the  Bishops,  and  by  means  of 
ruinous  fines,  wasting  imprisonments,  and  ignominious  exe- 
cutions at  the  stake  or  at  the  gallows. 


*  This  fact  may  be  new  to  some  of  my  readers,  but  incredible  as  it 
may  seem,  it  is  unquestionably'  true.  If  any  wish  to  investigate  the 
matter,  I  beg  to  refer  them  to  those  Protestant  historians,  Hallam, 
Mackintosh  and  Hume.  The  last  named  author  says:  "It  was  a 
real  inquisition,  attended  Avith  all  the  iniquities  as  well  as  cruelties, 
inseparable  from  that  tribunal."  {Hist,  of  England,  chap,  xli.)  In 
Hallam,  [Const.  Uist.  vol.  I,  chap.  3  and  4,)  may  be  found  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  instruments  of  torture  used  by  this  Anglican  Inquisition, 
such  as  racks,  hoops,  iron  gauntlets,  &c.  &c. 

t  An  attempt  was  made  to  efface  and  prevent  the  very  knowledge  of 
the  Catholic  religion.  For  this  purpose  the  freedom  of  the  press,  and 
the  circulation  of  books  were  restrained.  No  one  except  the  Queen's 
Printer  was  allowed  to  print  a  book  without  the  permission  of  the 
Protestant  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  Bishop  of  London.  (See 
Hallam,  Constit.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  vol.  I,  chap.  4.)  This  same  author 
adds,  "It  was  penal  to  utter,  or  so  much  as  to  possess  even  the  most 
learned  works  on  the  Catholic  side."  Ibid.  Yet  Protestants  who 
profess  to  be  such  friends  of  religious  liberty,  eulogise  that  intolerant 
and  sanguinary  woman  as  "  Good  Queen  Bess  !" 


LKTTEllII.  45 

The  Book  of  Coniinon-Prayor  had  undergone,  before  the 
accession  of  James  I.,  many  changes,  as  we  have  already 
shown.  But  it  was  not  yet  perfect.  It  was  destined,  as  we 
shall  find,  to  be  revised  yet  again  and  again.  Indeed,  in 
this  respect,  it  may  be  regarded  as  an  emblem  of  the  unset- 
tled and  ever-shifting  character  of  l*rotestantism ;  and  its 
authors  seem  to  fulfil,  literally,  the  language  of  the  Apostle: 
"Ever  learning,  and  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth."  Queen  Elizabeth  and  her  co-laborers  did  all  in 
their  power  to  compel  men  to  conform  to  their  particular 
creed,  but  the  eS'ort  was  vain.  They  who  were  led  to  cut 
loose  from  the  moorings  of  the  Catholic  faith,  were  not  all 
content  to  follow  the  royal  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  and 
many  of  theiu  clamored  for  greater  deviations  from  the 
doctrines  and  ceremonies  of  the  old  religion,  than  was  marked 
out  in  the  Prayer-Book.  These  men  were  called  Puritans, 
and  under  James  I.,  rapidly  increased  in  number,  and  soon 
became  a  powerful  party,  supported  as  they  were  by  not  a 
few  eminent  ecclesiastics  of  the  Established  Church.  In 
consequence  of  the  objections  to  the  Prayer-Book,  made  by 
this  party,  another  review  of  it  was  ordered  by  the  king, 
A.  D.  1604,  and  in  the  words  of  Short,  "a  few  changes 
were  introduced,  with  much  judgment."  (§  747.) 

At  a  later  period,  we  find  the  new  party  of  "  Eeformers" 
grown  so  numerous  and  powerful  as  to  become  predominant 
in  Church  and  State.  Then  it  was,  my  fi-iend,  that  the  re- 
tributive justice  of  God  was  visibly  and  terribly  manifested, 
"  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children." 
The  bitter  chalice  which  the  Protestant  Episcopalians  had 
meted  out  to  the  poor  Catholics  under  Edward  and  Elizabeth, 
was  now  returned  to  their  own  lips.  The  Puritans  and 
Presbyterians  having  gained  the  upper  hand,  put  to  death 
King  Charles,  and  the  Protestant  archbishop.  Laud,  as 
tyi'ants ;  drove  the  bishops  out  of  their  sees,  and  abolished 
Episcopacy  as  a  corruption  ;  set  aside  the  Prayer-Book  as 
full  of  Popish  errors,  and  established  the  Directory  or  Pres- 
byterian Confession  of  Faith  in  its  stead  !  Was  ever  a  par- 
allel more  complete  ?  Was  ever  the  judgment  of  God  more 
clearly  manifested  ?  And  how,  my  friend,  can  you  justify 
the  fir.st  set  of  innovators  under  Henry  and  Elizabetli,  and 
condemn  the  second  set  under  Cromwell  ?  They  both  acted 
upon  the  same  principle  of  judging  for  themselves,  as  to 
what  was  the  religion  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  Apostles ; 


46  LETTERS     TO-    AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

and  if  you  condemn  one  set,  you  must  condemn  the  other 
also.  Once  reject  the  authority  of  the  Pope  and  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  and  men  are  at  liberty  to  follow  whatever  reli- 
gion they  judge  best ;  and  no  man  who  rejects  that  authority 
can  faii'ly  or  consistently  condemn  them — for  it  is  only  au- 
thority that  can  justly  eondenm — but  when  authority  has 
been  discarded,  no  man  can  judge  his  fellow  man.  Hence, 
the  Elizabethan  Church  was  the  fruitful  source  of  all  sorts 
of  religious  dissensions,  opinions,  schisms  and  sects.  And 
that  Church  is  justly  chargeable  with  their  existence,  inas- 
much as  they  were  the  natural  result  of  her  example,  and 
the  jirinciple  upon  which  she  was  originally  set  up, — the 
principle  of  private  judgment,  carried  out,  in  her  case,  by 
the  reigning  sovereign,  whom  she  followed. 

With  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.  came  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  Elizabethan  or  Anglican  Church,  aud  the  resto- 
ration of  the  Prayer-Book.  But  the  party  opposed  to  the 
Prayer-Book,  was  still  numerous,  and  clamored  for  further 
changes.  They  took  the  ground,  not  without  reason,  that 
the  Prayer-Book  was  originally  framed  so  as  to  conciliate 
the  Catholics,  and  they  desired  that  it  should  now  assume  a 
more  Protestant  character.  In  particular,  they  desired  the 
disuse  of  the  cross  in  baptism,  the  surplice,  the  ring  in 
marriage,  and  kneeling  at  the  communion — that  the  obser- 
vance of  Lent  and  Saints'  days  should  be  left  optional — that 
certain  expressions  in  the  baptismal  and  burial  services 
should  be  altered — that  the  frequent  use  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  should  be  avoided,  and  the  minister  be  allowed  to 
omit  portions  of  the  service,  and  to  introduce  his  own  extem- 
porary prayers  at  discretion — and  that  no  lessons  should 
be  read  from  the  Apocrypha.  These,  and  other  like  changes, 
which  were  demanded  by  the  Puritan  or  Presbyterian  party, 
would  have  made  the  Prayer-Book  much  more  Protestant 
and  more  acceptable,  no  doubt,  to  a  large  body  of  its  present 
friends,  both  in  England  and  America.  The  Non-Conform- 
ists, as  they  were  called,  in  demanding  these  changes,  pro- 
fessed to  be  actuated  by  conscientious  motives,  and  declared 
that  they  could  not  follow  the  Prayer-Book  in  these  things, 
without  committing  sin — in  this  respect,  also,  following 
the  •example  of  the  first  innovators,  who  refused  to  con- 
form to  the  Catholic  worship.  As  the  matter  proved  the 
cause  of  much  dissension,  it  was  determined  to  subject  the 
book  to  another   revision.     Accordingly,    a  conferenee  was 


LKTTERII.  47 

held  for  the  purpo.^e,  composed  of  twenty-one  of  each  party, 
friends  of  the  Prayer-Book  and  its  opponents.  After  a  long 
debate,  they  were  of  course  unable  to  agree,  except  as  to  a 
few  unimportant  alterations,  and  the  conference  was  termi- 
nated. But  as  many  continued  to  clamor  for  changes, 
another  revision  was  undertaken  subsequently  by  the  Convo- 
cation, and  certain  alterations  were  made,  although  not 
enough  to  satisfy  the  discontented  party.  The  alterations 
then  introduced  were  quite  numerous,  and  some  of  them 
were  important.  I  cannot  pause  to  specify  them  in  detail. 
Let  it  suffice  to  say,  that  changes  were  made  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  certain  jjortions,  alterations  in  the  language,  as 
"  congregation"  for  "  Church,"  and  new  collects,  rubrics, 
and  even  new  services  were  added. 

But  behold  the  inconsistency  and  intolerance  of  the 
"Church  of  England"  authorities.  When  they  were  re- 
minded of  their  duty  to  the  Catholic  Church,  they  attempted 
to  justify  themselves  on  plea  of  conscience — they  could  not 
submit  and  conform  to  her — there  were  corruptions  and  er- 
rors in  the  Missal  and  they  could  not  use  it.  But  when  a 
large  and  powerful  portion  of  their  own  members,  their  own 
fellow-Protestants,  set  up  the  same  plea  against  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  their  objections  were  set  at  naught,  and 
severer  measures  were  at  once  taken  to  force  them  to  use  it, 
their  scruples  of  conscience  notwithstanding  I  The  persecut- 
ing measures  thus  taken  are  worthy  of  a  passing  notice,  as 
illustrative  of  the  spirit  of  the  times  and  the  history  of  the 
Prayer-Book.  We  have  seen  that  an  act  of  conformity  had 
been  passed  under  Elizabeth,  compelling  both  priests  and 
people  to  use  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  nothing  else, 
under  pain  of  fines  and  imprisonment.  This  act  was  still  in 
force,  and  was  applicable  to  all  non-conformists,  whether 
Catholics  or  Puritans.  But  it  was  not  sufficiently  summary 
for  the  intolerant  zeal  of  the  thorough-going  sticklers  for  the 
Prayer-Book,  and  other  acts  of  Parliament  were  passed,  di- 
rected partly  against  the  Puritan  party  in  the  Establishment, 
and  partly  against  the  Catholics.  An  act  was  passed  eject- 
ing all  beneficed  clergymen  who  neglected  to  use  the  Prayer- 
Book  by  the  24th  of  August,  1G62,  and  requiring  further, 
that  all  persons  holding  ecclesiastical  or  academical  prefer- 
ment should,  before  the  same  day,  subscribe  a  declaration, 
"that  he  will  conform  to  the  liturgy,"  and  "that  it  is 
unlawful  to  take  arms  against  the  king  on  any  pretence 
5* 


48  LETT.ERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

whatsoever."  (Shoi-fs  Hist. ,  §  702.)  Thus  were  they  compel- 
led either  to  give  up  their  livings  or  take  the  Prayer-Book, 
and  with  it  monarchy,  and  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience  ! 
Men  prate  about  Catholic  persecution  and  Catholic  enslave- 
ment. Where  will  they  find  a  parallel  to  this  in  Catholic 
times  ?  Did  the  Catholic  Church  anywhere  ever  teach  that 
tyrannical  kings  should  not  be  resisted  ' '  under  any  pretence 
whatsoever?"  Certainly  not.  This  monstrous  absurdity  was 
reserved  for  the  "  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  establish- 
ed." When  the  appointed  day  arrived  for  the  act  to  take 
effect,  it  is  said  that  two  thousand  ministers  were  ejected  from 
their  preferments,  including  many  of  the  best  men  of  the 
Establishment.  Having  thus  ousted  the  non-conforming 
clergy,  the  next  thing  was  to  oust  the  same  class  of  laymen, 
and  to  punish  them  afterwards  too.  Thus  the  corporation-act 
compelled  every  officer  of  a  corporation  not  only  to  subscribe 
the  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  but  to  receive  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England.  This 
act  was  directed  also  against  Catholics,  as  it  excluded  from 
Parliament  and  offices  of  trust  all  who  refused  to  make  a 
declaration  against  Transubstantiation,  &c.  By  another  act, 
any  person  who  resorted  to  a  conventicle  for  worship  was 
fined  or  imprisoned.  By  another  act,  a  non-conformist 
was  not  allowed  to  teach  a  public  school,  upon  pain  of 
imprisonment.  Such  were  the  means  employed  to  en- 
force the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book,  first  upon  the  Catho- 
lics, and  afterwards  also,  upon  Protestants  who  conscien- 
tiously believed  it  full  of  errors.  And  these  severe  measures, 
these  bitter  and  destructive  persecutions,  begun  by  Henry 
YIII.  continued  for  about  two  hundred  years;  so  little  idea  had 
the  followers  of  Craumer  of  religious  toleration  even  after 
the  lapse  of  several  generations.  And  indeed  the  toleration 
which  England  allows  even  now  is  the  dictate  mainly  of 
policy  and  necessity.  In  spite  of  her  fines,  imprisonments, 
and  bloody  executions,  non-conformists.  Catholics  and  Pro- 
testants, flourished  and  multiplied,  so  that  England  was  com- 
pelled to  let  them  alone.* 

I  have  now  traced  the  history  of  the  Prayer-Book  down  to 
the  times  of  Charles  II. ,  under  whose  reign  it  received  its 
last  revision  in  England.      And  what  an  extraordinary  histo- 

*  An  Act  of  Toleration  was  passed  in  the  reign  of  William  and 
Mary,  for  the  relief  of  Protestant  dissenters,  but  Catholics  were  ex- 
pressly excluded  from  its  benefits  !     (Short,  |  806.) 


L  E  T  T  E  R     I  r  .  49 

ry  it  is  I  We  find  it  making  its  first  appearance  under  Henry 
Vin.  as  the  "King's  Prinjer ;"  certainly  a  very  appropriate 
name  for  it,  and  one  which  would  have  suited  it  equally  as 
well  in  its  subsequent  enlargements.  It  next  appears  under 
Edward  VT.,  considerably  altered  and  enlarged,  as  the 
"Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  and  put  forth  in  the  act  of 
Parliament  "  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  one  uniform 
agreement,"  containing  Extreme  Unction,  Prayers  for  the 
Dead,  &c.  But  the  short  reign  of  Edward  has  not  elapsed 
before  it  is  discovered  that  this  godly  and  inspired  book  is 
full  of  errors,  and  sadly  needs  revising ;  this  discovery 
seems  to  have  been  made  "by  the  aid"  of  Mart3"r,  Bucer,  and 
other  TiUtherans  from  the  continent.  It  accordingly  under- 
goes another  revision  ;  and  after  sundry  omissions  and  altera- 
tions, it  is  again  put  forth  by  Parliament,  and  is  known  as  the 
' '  Second  Book  of  Edward  VI."  After  the  death  of  Edward, 
a  Catholic  ascends  the  throne,  and  forthwith  the  whole  thing 
is  abolished  and  set  aside  by  the  same  Parliament,  as  having 
been  falsely  and  deceitfully  imposed  upon  the  country,  and 
both  Parliament  and  Convocation  humbly  seek  pardon  for 
the  "  horrible  defection  and  schism"  of  which  they  had  been 
guilty.  But  when  Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne,  although 
she  had  professed  herself  a  convert  to  the  Catholic  faith, 
everything  relating  to  religion  is  again  changed,  and  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  arises  from  the  dead,  and  after  un- 
dergoing another  revision,  is  once  more  put  forth  by  authori- 
ty of  Parliament.  Under  the  next  sovereign,  James  I.,  still 
another  revision  of  the  Book  was  undertaken,  and  sundry 
changes  were  introduced.  Again,  under  Charles  I.,  it  is 
revised  and  amended.  But  under  Cromwell  it  is  once  more 
wholly  abolished,  as  unfit  for  Christian  use.  With  Charles 
II.,  it  is  again  revised,  but  is  subjected  to  yet  another 
emendation.*     Such  were  the  repeated  changes  which  it  un- 


*  The  bishops  and  others  were  .«till  far  from  satisfied  with  the  Book 
as  last  amended  under  Charles  II.  Indeed,  so  great  was  the  dissatis- 
faction, that  in  1689,  under  William  and  Mary,  a  commission  was  is- 
sued to  ''prepare  alterations  in  the  Liturgy  and  Canons."'  And  for  this 
purpose,  ten  bishops  and  twenty  divines  were  selected,  but  after  meet- 
ing together,  they  were  unable  to  accomplish  anything  in  consequence 
of  their  dissensions.  What  an  impressive  fact  is  here.  These  chief 
pastors  and  doctors  of  the  Church  were  convinced  that  the  Prayer- 
Book  needed  altering  and  amending,  but  they  could  not  agree  as  to 
what  should  be  omitted  nor  what  added  i     And,  as  it  was  then,  so  is 


50  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

derwent  from  the  times  of  Henry  VIII.  to  those  of  Charles 
II. ,  covering  a  period  of  nearly  a  century  and  a  half.  And 
when  we  remember  not  only  the  number  but  the  character 
of  these  changes,  that  they  involved  doctrine  as  well  as  wor- 
ship, and  that  sometimes  they  were  in  one  direction  and 
sometimes  in  another,  now  towards  Rome,  and  now  towards 
Geneva,  we  see  how  impossible  it  was  for  the  established 
Church  of  England,  during  all  that  time  to  arrive  at  any 
clear  and  settled  system  of  religion.  Was  it  not  a  most  palpa- 
ble fulfilment  of  the  rebuke  of  the  inspired  Apostle—' '  Ever 
learning,  and  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth," — ever  striving  to  obtain  a  consistent,  harmonious, 
and  satisfactory  system  of  doctrine  and  worship,  but  never 
able  to  succeed.  Certainly,  the  diflFerent  phases  which 
Church-of-Englandism  has  assumed  in  consequence  of  the 
changes  which  I  have  described,  constitute  a  most  remark- 
able feature  in  her  history  and  character,  and  necessarily 
deprives  her  of  all  right  to  the  submission  and  obedience  of 
her  children.  How  can  they  tell  which  of  these  phases  is  to 
be  taken  as  her  real  character,  or  whether  any  of  them  can 
be  so  taken.  Who  knows  but  that  she  is  yet  to  assume 
another  phase,  under  the  "reforming"  process  of  which  she 
has  been  so  often  the  subject.  That  another  revision  was 
determined  and  vmdertaken,  I  have  already  shown.  That  a 
further  revision  was  needed  was  not  only  then  admitted,  but 
"  it  has  ever  since  been  felt  and  admitted  by  leading  members 
of  that  Church.  And,  in  point  of  fact,  another  revision  did 
actually  take  place,  at  which  great  changes  were  made,  that 
is,  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  "Protestant  Ejiisco- 
pal  Church"  in  this  country,  of  which  I  shall  treat  presently. 
Change  is  the  characteristic  of  all  sects,  but  is  it  not  em- 
phatically, and  in  an  extraordinary  degree,  the  characteristic 
of  Church-of-Englandism  ?  That  system  has  certainly  under- 
gone more  changes  than  any  other  religious  system  under 
the  sun,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  "  end 
is  not  yet." 

There  are  two  other  important  facts  which  I  have  laid 
before  you  in  the  course  of  this  historical  sketch,  and  which 
must  not  be  overlooked.     The  first  is,  that  the  Prayer-Eook 

it  ll0^y,  as  every  Episcopalian  knows.  All  disapprove  of  it  as  it  is,  some 
of  this  part  and  some  of  that,  but  they  are  compelled  to  endure  it  as 
it  is,  because  unable  to  agree  as  to  what  changes  shall  be  made. 


I>  K  T  T  K  R    1 1  .  51 

was  put  forth  by  Parliament,  and  that  it  was  alternately  set 
up  and  abolished,  according  to  the  religious  sentiments  of 
the  reigning  sovereign.  Thus.  Parliament  set  it  up  under 
Edward,  and  Parliament  abolished  it  under  Mary.  xVgain,. 
Parliament  set  it  up  under  Elizabeth,  and  Parliament  abol- 
ished it  a  second  time  under  Cromwell,  and  sul)se(|uently  set 
it  up  a  third  time,  under  Charles. 

The  second  fact  is,  that  this  l*rayer-Book  was  not  only  set 
forth  by  Parliament,  but  it  was  forced  upon  the  people  of 
England  by  the  penal  enactments  of  that  body.  Its  adop- 
tion was  compulsory.  No  choice  was  left  to  either  clergy  or 
laymen.  However  much  opposed  to  it,  they  had  to  use  it, 
or  suffer  the  loss  of  office,  and  undergo  ruinous  fines  and 
a  degrading  imprisonment.  Thus,  its  history  is  a  history  of 
persecution, — bitter,  unrelenting,  protracted,  and  even  mur- 
derous persecution.  Its  history,  indeed,  is  written  in  blood. 
It  is  enough  to  make  one's  hair  stand  on  end,  enough  to 
make  the  blood  boil,  to  read  of  the  cruel  sufferings  to  which 
the  poor  Catholics  were  subjected,  in  order  to  compel  them 
to  adopt  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  And  however  much, 
my  friend,  you  may  esteem  that  book,  you  must  condemn 
the  cruel  and  arbitrary  measures  by  which  it  was  fastened 
upon  the  English  peoj^le.  And  whether  its  merits  be  greater 
or  less,  you  must  perceive  and  admit  that  if  it  has,  to  some 
extent,  supplanted  the  Catholic  Missal,  the  change  was 
brought  about,  not  by  a  sense  of  the  superior  excellence  of 
the  Prayer-Book,  but  by  arbitrary  power,  civil  enactments, 
and  cruel  persecutions — in  one  word,  by  hrnte  force. 

My  historical  notice  of  the  Prayer-Book  has  thus  far  been 
confined  to  the  changes  which  it  underwent  in  England.  I 
have  now  to  say  something  concerning  another  revision, 
which  it  was  subjected  to  in  this  country.  Down  to  the 
period  of  our  national  independence,  the  Prayer-Book,  as 
last  amended  under  Charles  II.,  was  used  by  that  body  of 
religious  persons,  in  this  country,  who  acknowledged  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church  of  England.  But  when  the  colonies 
became  separated  fi-om  the  mother  country,  these  persons 
considered  themselves  free,  ecclesiastically,  and  immediately 
proceeded  to  establish  an  independent  Church.  One  of  their 
first  cares,  in  the  process  of  setting  up  for  themselves,  was 
to  alter  and  amend  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  they 
had  received  it  from  the  old  country.  Accordingly,  at  a 
convention  held  in  Philadelphia  in  1785,  the  Prayer-Book 


52  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

underwent  a  general  review ;  and  among  other  great  changes 
then  made  in  it,  the  Nicene  Creed  was  thrown  out !  What 
think  you  of  that,  my  friend  ?  Is  it  not  a  terrible  argument 
against  the  spirit  and  the  faith  of  the  members  composing 
that  convention?  The  Prayer-Book,  as  then  amended,  was 
called  "  The  Proposed  Book."  At  a  convention  held  in 
Wilmington,  the  following  year,  the  subject  was  again  taken 
up,  and  the  Nioene  Creed  was  restored,  but  the  Athanasian 
Creed  was  left  out !  And  this  latter  Creed  has  been  left  out 
to  this  day,  although  still  retained  in  the  Prayer-Book  of  the 
Church  of  England  !  The  Prayer-Book,  thus  amended,  was 
adopted  and  ratified  in  convention  in  1789,  with  the  exception, 
however,  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  which  were  the  source  of 
much  controversy,  and  which  were  not  adopted  until  the  year 
1801  ;  and  only  then,  rather  because  they  found  it  impossible 
to  agree  upon  any  other  set  of  doctrines  than  that  they  relish- 
ed the  Thirty-Nine.  But  still  the  Prayer-Book  was  imper- 
fect. In  1792  the  Ordinal  was  revised  and  altered.  In 
1795  a  service  was  added  for  the  consecration  of  a  Church. 
In  1804  another  office  was  inserted  in  it,  for  the  institution 
of  a  minister — and  at  later  periods,  several  instalments  of 
hymns  were  added.  Thus,  it  has  already  undergone,  in 
this  country,  in  a  brief  period,  some  half  a  dozen  reviews 
and  revisions,  consisting  of  omissions,  alterations  and  amend- 
ments, of  more  or  less  doctrinal  importance,  even  to  the 
setting  aside,  first,  of  one  entire  creed,  then  of  another  ; 
both  of  them,  creeds  which,  from  the  fourth  century,  have 
been  revered  as  the  symbols  of  true  orthodoxy !  But  after 
all  the  revisions  and  amendments  which  the  Prayer-Book 
has  undergone,  first  in  England,  then  in  America,  how  ut- 
terly unsatisfactory  has  been  the  result.  Further  changes 
have  been  repeatedly  called  for,  and  are  still  desired,  by 
many  in  both  countries.  High  Churchmen  are  not  satisfied 
with  it,  and  Low  Churchmen  are  even  less  satisfied  with  it. 
And,  indeed,  I  doubt  if  a  single  Episcopalian  can  be  found 
who  is  entirely  satisfied  with  it.  All  parties  in  the  Church 
would  like  to  see  changes  introduced,  but  the  great  difficulty 
is,  that  they  are  unable  to  agree,  like  the  conference  under 
James  II.,  as  to  what  these  changes  shall  be.  High 
Churchmen  would  make  the  book  more  Catholic — Low 
Churchmen  would  make  it  more  Protestant.  Thus,  what  one 
would  discard,  another  would  wish  to  retain — and,  on  the 


LETTERir.  53 

other  hand,  what  one  would  retain,  another  would  wish  to 
discard.  And,  as  these  parties  are  nearly  equally  balanced 
in  numbers  and  influence,  they  are  both  afraid  to  undertake 
a  revision,  lest  the  one  should  triumph  at  the  expense  of  the 
other.  Both  parties  prefer  to  bear  with  the  imperfections 
which  they  now  respectively  deplore  in  it,  rather  than  run  the 
risk  of  the  greater  imperfections  which  might  result  from 
another  revision.  Hence,  with  a  lively  sense  of  this  danger, 
they  agree  to  let  it  alone,  and  even  cry  out  for  "  the  Prayer- 
Book  as  it  is,"  preferring  "to  bear  the  ills  they  have,  than 
fly  to  others  that  they  know  not  of." 

In  my  next  letter,  I  propose  to  inquire  into  the  character 
and  motives  of  the  principal  agents  concerned  in  imposing 
the  PrayerrBook  upon  the  English  nation. 

A.  B. 


LETTER   III. 

'The  Prayer-Book  originally  made  on  the  plea  of  reforming  the  Litur- 
gy.— The  character  of  its  principal  authors  examined. — Henry 
VIII.,  Thomas  Cromwell,  Anne  Boleyn,  Edward  VI,,  The  Duke  of 
Somerset,  The  Duke  of  Northumberland,  Ridley,  Latimer, 
Cranmer,  Queen  Elizabeth,  reviewed  as  a  class. — Nearly  all  of 
them  renounced  Protestantism  after  embracing  it. — All  were  intol- 
erant and  sanguinary. — Most  of  them  perished  as  felons. — Wei'e  not 
"Reformers,"  and  were  not  moved  by  "Church  Corruptions." — 
The  real  causes  of  the  English  Schism  set  forth. 

My  Dear  Friend  : 

I  HAVE  now  set  before  you  tlie  origin  of  the  Prayer-Book, 
together  with  a  brief  sketch  of  the  many  revisions  and  ' '  re- 
forms" which  it  has  vmdergone.  I  have  likewise  shewn  you 
how  it  was  first  set  forth  by  the  civil  authority,  and  during 
several  generations  forced  upon  the  English  people  by  cruel 
persecutions.  Let  us  now  take  a  hasty  glance  at  the  per- 
sons who  were  most  active  in  getting  up  this  Book  as  a 
substitute  for  the  Missal,  and  in  forcing  it  upon  the  people  of 
England.  Nothing  is  more  reasonable  than  to  judge  of  a 
work  by  the  character  of  the  persons  by  whom  it  was  begun 
and  carried  on.  This  course  is  especially  so  in  a  matter  of 
this  kind.  It  is  alleged  that  the  Catholic  w^orship  as  pre- 
scribed in  the  Missal,  was  deformed  by  errors  and  corrup- 
tions, and  that  it  needed  reforming,  and  hence  a  new  liturgy, 
that  of  the  Prayer-Book,  was  devised.  Thus  it  is  claimed 
that  it  was  a  work  of  reform.  If  then  it  was  a  work  of  re- 
form, the  persons  engaged  in  it  ought  to  have  been  eminently 
virtuous  and  pious,  more  so,  at  least,  than  the  mass  of  the 
people,  and  especially  more  so  than  the  friends  of  the  old 
worship.  Will  the  authors  of  the  Prayer-Book  bear  such  a 
scrutiny?  We  shall  see.  It  has  been  customary  to  write 
and  publish  very  fair  biographies  of  at  least  some  of  these 
men,  and  to  hold  them  up  for  veneration  as  saints  and  mar- 
tyrs. But  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  such  biogra- 
phies owe  their  fair  proportions  more  to  sectarian  zeal  and 
partiality  than  to  the  stern  records  of  historical  truth.      It  is 

(54) 


1,  K  T  T  C  R     1  1 1 .  55 

not  professions  that  make  a  character,  it  is  not  a  mere  belief 
in  this  or  that  form  of  faith — it  is  the  life  anil  conduct.  Men 
must  be  judged  by  their  drcds  both  here  and  hereafter.  By 
this  rule  let  us  try  the  men  who  have  given  us  the  Protest- 
ant Prayer-Book,  as  a  substitute  for  the  Catholic  Missal. 
Let  us  try  them  fairly — not  l)y  tlie  assertions  of  their  ene- 
mies, but  by  notorious,  indisputable  facts,  and  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  friends  of  the  Prayer-Book. 

The  first  chief  actor  in  the  great  religious  change  which 
gave  the  Book  of  Common-Prayer  to  England,  was  King 
Henr^'  VIII.  It  was  by  that  monarch,  that  the  separation 
from  the  Holy  See  was  first  effected,  and  the  Prayer-Book 
was  the  natural  fruit  of  that  separation.  As  I  have  stated 
in  a  previous  letter,  Henry  quarrelled  with  the  Pope  because 
he  was  not  allowed  to  divorce  his  faithful  Avife,  Catharine,  in 
order  to  make  room  for  a  young  beauty  for  whom  he  had 
conceived  a  violent  and  unlawful  passion.  Previous  to  that 
quarrel,  Henry  had  been  a  zealous  Catholic,  and  had  even 
written  a  book  against  Luther,  in  vindication  of  the  Seven 
Sacraments.  But  his  criminal  passion  urged  him  to  set  at 
naught  tlie  authority  of  the  Holy  Father,  and  to  require  all 
his  people  to  acknowledge  himself  as  the  supreme  head  of 
the  Church,  in  place  of  the  Pope.  This  was  the  beginning 
of  the  great  schism  that  gave  birth  to  the  '  ■  Church  of  Eng- 
land as  by  law  established,"  and  to  the  Prayer-Book.  Not 
a  few  Episcopalian  writers,  perceiving  the  odium  of  an  origin 
in  lust  and  crime,  have  labored  hard  to  do  away  with  the 
reproach.  But  the  great  fact  stands  out  in  bold  relief  upon 
the  page  of  history,  and  cannot  be  expunged  nor  evaded, 
however  much  it  may  be  disrelished  and  even  reprobated. 
I  have  already  had  occasion  to  quote  the  Protestant  bishop. 
Short,  as  more  candid  in  regard  to  many  of  the  great  facts 
of  those  times,  than  Protestant  historians  generally,  and  I 
shall  draw  fin-ther  from  his  pages.  The  fifth  chapter  of  his 
History  of  the  Church  of  England,  opens  witli  this  sentence  : 
"  The  existence  of  the  Church  of  England  as  a  distinct 
body,  and  her  final  separation  from  Rome,  may  be  dated 
from  the  period  of  the  divorce."  Here,  then,  is  the  great 
fact  expressly  admitted,  by  an  authority  which  no  Episcopa- 
lian will  dispute.  And  what  was  that  divorce  but  an  act  of 
lust  and  crime?  Henry,  then,  was  plainl}'  the  author  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  as  sucn  the  indirect  author  of  the 
Prayer-Book.  But  his  agency  in  the  latter  was  still  more 
6 


56  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

direct.  He  not  only  opened  the  way  for  the  Prayer-Book, 
by  his  schism,  but  it  was  under  his  auspices  that  the  changes 
in  the  liturgy  were  commenced,  and  the  foundations  of  the 
Prayer-Book  were  laid.  This  is  so  indisputable,  that  proof 
seems  superfluous — but  I  will  quote  a  passage  from  a  work 
written  by  an  Episcopalian  clergyman,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kip, 
now  "Bishop  of  California."  In  giving  a  history  of  the 
Prryer-Book,  he  says  :  "  The  first  step  was  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VHI.,  Avhen  a  committee,  appointed  for  that  purpose, 
translated  certain  portions  of  the  service  into  English,  which 
were  published  under  the  title  of  the  '  Institution  of  a 
Christian  Man.'  It  was  known,  also,  by  the  na,me  of  the 
'  Bishop's  Book.'  Six  years  afterwards,  this  was  revised 
and  re-published  under  the  title  of  '  A  Necessary  Doctrine 
and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man.'  Again,  in  1545, 
the  '  King's  Primer'  was  published.  (^Double  Witness  of 
the  CJinrch,  p.  204.)  Now,  these  little  books  were  the 
foundations  of  the  Prayer-Book,  (which  was  more  fully  put 
forth  under  the  next  reign,)  and  they  were  set  forth,  not 
only  with  Henry's  sanction  but  by  his  authority ;  for  Henry, 
as  "  head  of  the  Church,"  allowed  no  changes  to  be  made 
in  religion,  except  such  as  accorded  with  his  own  views — 
and  hence,  the  Seven  Sacraments,  including  Transubstantia- 
tion,  were  held  throughout  the  whole  of  his  reign.  Henry 
may,  therefore,  be  correctly  styled  the  father  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  of  the  Pi-ayer-Book. 

Who  and  what,  then,  was  Henry  VIII.? — need  I  answer 
this  question  ?  Has  not  almost  every  child  heard  of  him  as 
the  inhuman  and  fierce  monster  that  disgraced  his  country 
and  his  age — the  bloody  Blue-Beard  that  took  off  human 
heads  with  as  little  ceremony  as  he  carved  a  chicken  V 

Fot  seventeen  years,  Henry  had  lived  in  harmony  with 
his  faithful  wife,  Catharine,  without  a  scruple  as  to  the  law- 
fulness of  his  marriage,  and  b}'  her  had  several  children, 
including  Queen  Mary.  But  forming  an  unlawful  attach- 
ment to  Anne  Boleyn,  a  beautiful  damsel  of  his  court,  he 
determined  to  take  her  to  wife  ;  and  with  this  view,  he  ap- 
plied to  the  Pope  for  permission  to  divorce  Catharine.  The 
Pope  refused.  Henry  continued  to  urge  his  request  by  every 
means  in  his  power.  But  the  Pope,  faithful  to  his  duty, 
steadfastly  refused  to  sanction  the  iniquity.  Unable  to  in- 
duce the  Pontiff  to  consent,  he  renounced  the  Papal  authority, 
made  Cranmer  his  Archbishop  ;  and  Cranmer,  in  return  for 


LETTER     III 


57 


this  favor,  pronounced  the  divorce  of  Henry  and  Catha- 
rine,— and  his  majesty  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  take  to  his 
bosom,  the  object  of  his  passion,  although  it  seems  he  had 
long  since  anticipated  all  such  formalities.*  This  was  the 
beginning,  as  Short  says,  of  the  "  Church  of  England,"  and 
it  was  the  beginning,  too,  of  Henry's  infemous  career.  One 
crime  leads  to  another,  and  terrible  was  the  series  which  fol- 
lowed from  this  first  offence  of  the  impetuous  monarch. 
Anne  Boleyn  was  a  zealous  friend  of  the  religious  changes 
of  that  period,  finding  the  restraints  of  authority  rather  in- 
convenient, as  did  Henry  himself,  and  many  others.  Her  un- 
lawful connection,  (for  it  was  not  a  legitimate  marriage)  with 
the  king,  did  not  last  long.  Rumours  affecting  her,  how- 
ever, were  freely  circulated  about  the  court,  and  Henry's 
affection  had  been  directed  to  a  new  beauty,  Jane  Seymour. 
By  Henry's  order,  Anne  was  arrested  and  tried  for  adultery. 
Being  found  guilty,  she  was  immediately  executed,  together 
with  five  gentlemen  who  were  accused  with  her.  On  the 
day  of  her  execution,  Henry  was  pursuing  the  pleasures  of 
the  chase ;  and  the  next  day  he  was  married  to  Jane  Sey- 
mour, by  his  friend  Cranmer.  Jane  had  the  good  fortune 
to  die  a  natural  death ;  and  Henry  next  married  Anne  of 
Cleves.  But  not  liking  Anne,  he  set  her  aside,  with  the  aid 
of  Cranmer,  and  took,  for  his  fifth  wife,  Catharine  Howard. 
In  a  sliort  time,  she,  too,  was  accused  of  adultery,  and  sent 
to  the  block,  together  with  a  number  of  guilty  accomplices. 
Pretty  deeds  these  I  But  all  this  time,  the  "Church  of 
England"  we  are  told,  was  emerging  from  darkness  to  light ; 
from  corruption  to  purity  I  Henry  soon  consoled  himself 
with  a  sixth  wife,  in  the  person  of  Cathai'ine  Parr,  who  very 
narrowly  escaped  the  fate  of  her  predecessors.  Thus  did  the 
miserable  wretch,  first  break  the  heart  of  his  faithful  wife, 
Catharine,  and  afterwards  successively  marry  five  other 
women,  three  of  whom  he  afterwards  divorced,  and  two  he 
put  to  death  !  Of  his  mistresses  I  forbear  to  speak.  Such 
was  the  author  of  the  English  schism.  But  this  is  not  all. 
His  lust  and  brutality  were  great,  but  his  cruelty  was  not 

*  The  marriage  M"ith  Aiine  took  place,  secretly,  before  the  divorce 
was  actually  pronounced,  but  Cranmer  afterwards,  confirmed  t lie  mar- 
riage. While  the  divorce  was  pending,  that  is  for  several  years,  Anne 
had  lived  under  the  "protection"  of  the  king,  and  certain  symptoms 
caused  the  marriage  ceremony  to  be  hastened,  divorce  or  no  divorce, 
of  which  Elizabeth,  afterwards  queen,  was  the  result. 


58  LETTERS     T0-    AN     E  P  I  SC  0  P  A  L  I A  Pf  .. 

less  so.  This  is  shewu,  not  only  by  the  summary  and  re- 
morseless execution  of  his  wives,  and  their  suspected  para- 
mours, but  by  the  sanguinary  laws  of  his  reign,  and  the 
bloody  persecutions  which  he  carried  on  to  the  end  of  his 
career,  against  all  who  ventured  to  follow  any  religion  but 
the  one  he  had  established,  whether  Catholics  or  Protestants. 
Henry  was,  indeed,  a  blood-thirsty  monster.  His  i3ersecu- 
tions  were  horrid  butcheries.  All  who  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge him  as  head  of  the  Church,  instead  of  the  Pope  were 
condemned  to  death.  And  of  the  horrid  manner  in  which 
this  death  was  inflicted,  we  have  a  specimen  in  the  case  of 
John  Houghton,  a  prior  of  a  monastery.  This  faithful  Ca- 
tholic was  first  hung,  then  cut  down  ;  and,  while  yet  alive, 
his  clothes  were  stripped  off,  his  entrails  were  torn  fi-om  his 
body,  and  flung  into  a  fi^re ;  his  head  was  cut  off";  the  body 
was  divided  into  quarters,  and  parboiled ;  and  afterwards 
hung  up  in  various  parts  of  the  city,  as  a  warning  to  such  as 
should  persist  in  acknowledging  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
See!  Much  has  been  written  about  Catholic  persecution, 
but  can  you  find  any  thing  exceeding  this,  in  cruelty  and 
barbarity  '?  And  yet,  Henry  was  the  founder  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  the  reformer  of  the  liturgy ! 

Among  the  Catholics  whom  this  monster  put  to  death, 
were  Sir  Thomas  More,  Bishop  Fisher,  and  the  Countess  of 
Salisbury,  three  of  the  most  distinguished  persons  in  Eng- 
land, at  that  time.  Sir  Thomas  More  was  the  Lord  Chan- 
cellor of  England.  "His  character,"  says  Bishop  Short, 
"was  singularly  splendid."  And  again:  "The  death  of 
this  wise  and  good  man,  leaves  an  indelible  stain  upon  the 
character  of  Henry."  (§  168.)  Short  bears  similar  testi- 
mony in  favor  of  Bishop  Fisher.  He  says:  "He  was  a 
learned  and  devout  man,"  and  relates  his  liberal  acts  towards 
the  universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  (§  109.)  The 
Countess  of  Salisbury,  was  the  mother  of  Cardinal  Pole, 
and  a  descendant  of  the  Plantagenets,  and  a  relative  of  the 
king.  The  Cardinal  had  rendered  himself  obnoxious  to  the 
royal  tyrant,  by  opposing  the  divorce  ;  and  the  monster  de- 
sired to  be  revenged.  But  as  the  Cardinal  was  on  the  Con- 
tinent, and  beyond  his  reach,  he  determined  to  wreak  his 
vengeance  upon  his  connections.  He  accordingly  executed 
two  of  the  Cardinal's  brothers,  and  then  proceeded  against 
his  aged  mother !  Without  cause,  he  had  her  arrested  and 
committed  to  prisou.     After  detaining  her  there   for  two 


LKXTKll     III, 


59 


years,  he  sent  her  to  the  scaifold.  Having  reached  the  place 
of  execution,  the  venerable  woman,  seventy  years  of  age, 
when  told  to  lay  her  head  on  the  block,  boldly  replied,  "  No, 
my  head  never  committed  treason — if  you  will  have  it,  you 
must  take  it  as  you  can."  She  was  held  down  by  force,  and 
while  the  executioner  performed  his  office,  she  exclaimed, 
' '  Blessed  are  they  who  suffer  persecution  for  righteousness' 
sake."  Such  were  the  deeds  of  Henry  VHI.  It  has  been 
truly  said  that  he  never  spared  man  in  his  anger,  nor  woman 
in  his  lust.  Considering  his  professions,  he  was  a  greater 
monster  than  the  pagan  Nero.  He  burnt  both  Catholics  and 
Protestants  at  the  same  stake.  In  regard  to  the  number  of 
executions  Avhich  he  caused,  I  find  the  following  statement  in 
Short's  history  :  "  Two  queens,  one  Cardinal,  (in  intention) 
dukes,  marquises,  earls,  and  earl's  sons,  ticeh-e ;  barons  and 
knights,  eiqhteen  ;  abbots,  priors,  monks  and  priests,  sccenty- 
sevcn ;  of  the  more  common  sort,  between  one  religion 
and  another,  Juigc  multitudes.''''  (§  227,  note.)  Such  were 
the  bloody  deeds  of  Henry  VIII.,  the  founder  of  the 
Church  of  England  I  Certainly  it  is  natural,  that  they  Avho 
have  had  the  misfortune  to  have  been  brought  up  in  that 
system,  of  which  he  was  the  author  and  founder,  should  be 
ashamed  to  acknowledge  him  as  their  father.*  Of  a  char- 
acter so  black,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  more  ;  or  to  his 
deeds  of  lust  and  murder,  I  might  add  his  deeds  of  rapine 
and  sacrilege.  He  robbed  and  plundered  the  Church  and 
the  poor.  Pie  confiscated  the  monasteries  and  Church  lands, 
and  expended  the  wealth  and  treasure  thus  obtained  upon 

*  Whatever  inny  he  thought  of  Henry  VIII..  by  the  present  adhe- 
rents of  Protestantism,  it  is  certain  that  the  early  members  and  bish- 
ops of  the  Anglican  schism,  did  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge  that  man 
as  their  founder.  In  the  Book  of  Homilies  composed  by  Crannier, 
Latimer  and  Ridley,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  and  appointed  to  be 
read  in  Churches,  I  find  the  following  passage  :  ''Honor  be  to  God, 
who  did  put  light  in  the  heart  of  his  faithful  and  true  minister  of  most 
famous  memory,  King  Henry  the  Eighth,  and  gave  him  the  knowledge 
of  his  word,  and  an  earnest  attection  to  seek  his  glory,  and  to  put 
away  all  such  superstitions,''  &c.  (P.  52 — Am.  P^d.)  Here  this 
monster  is  bla,si)hemously  termed  ''God's  faithful  and  true  Minister." 
This  is  done  by  your  three  saints  and  Martyrs,  Cranmer,  Latimer 
and  Ridley — j-ea,  by  the  authority  of  the  "Church  of  England"  of 
that  day  !  Docs  not  this  show,  that  they  and  Henry  and  all  who  joined 
in  their  work,  were  of  one  and  the  same  stamp?  The  Homilies  are 
cxpre.ssly  ai)])roved  and  commended  by  your  Prayer-Book,  as  you  will 
see  in  Article  35. 
6* 


60  LETTERS     TO    AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

his  favorites  and  his  passions.  His  sacrileges  were  enor- 
mous. His  rapacity  was  unbounded ;  and  whatever  he  de- 
sired, he  took  without  hindrance  or  scruple.  He  thus  impo- 
verished the  Church  and  the  nation  too.  In  fact,  Henry 
was  a  monster  in  crime  of  every  sort,  without  a  jjarallel, 
even  in  pagan  times.  To  talk  of  the  Almighty's  employing 
such  a  monster  to  reform  His  Church,  is  but  little  short  of 
blasphemy.  No !  when  the  Church  in  any  place  needs 
reforming,  God  raises  up  holy  priests  and  bishops  for  the 
purpose.  Under  the  old  law,  when  uuconsecrated  hands 
were  put  forth  to  steady  the  Ark,  His  displeasure  was  terri- 
bly manifested.  Can  we,  then,  believe  that  He  would  have 
employed  a  man  who  was  not  merely  uuconsecrated,  but 
defiled  by  enormous  vices  and  crimes,  to  reform  His  beloved 
S2)0use,  the  Church?  This  is  assuming  that  there  were  cor- 
ruptions in  the  Church,  which  is  false.  There  were,  in  one 
sense,  corruptions— corrupt  individuals  in  the  Church,  such 
as  Henry  and  his  fellow  miscreants.  Had  the  Church  itself 
needed  reforming,  who  would  have  been  most  likely  to  dis- 
cover and  undertake  it,  the  bad  man  or  the  good  man  ;  Henry 
Vni.,  or  those  holy  men  who  opposed  him,  Sir  Thomas 
More,  Bishop  Fisher  and  others,  who  suffered  death  rather 
than  renounce  the  ancient  and  Scriptural  authority  of  the 
Pontiff.  A  corrupt  man  would  naturally  favor  corruption  in 
the  Church.  Instead  of  exposing  and  suppressing  it,  he 
would  encourage  and  promote  it.  That  Henry  was  a  cor- 
rupt man,  abominably  corrupt,  no  one  denies  or  even  doubts. 
Our  Lord  has  expressly  said,  that  a  "corrupt  tree  cannot 
bring  forth  good  fruit."  As  Henry  was  corrupt,  the  work 
in  which  he  engaged,  was  corrupt.  He  deformed  the  Church, 
not  reformed  it. 

What  has  been  said  of  Henry,  may  be  said  of  his  co- 
workers in  the  ecclesiastical  revolution  of  that  period,  mis- 
called the  "Reformation."  The  prominent,  leading  actors 
in  that  schism,  were  bad  men,  very  bad  men.  This  I  will 
prove  by  their  misdeeds. 

Another  prominent  actor  in  the  iniquities  of  these  times, 
was  Thomas  Cromwell.  This  man  was  the  principal  adviser 
of  Henry,  and  he  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  person  that 
suggested  to  the  king,  that  the  Pope's  authority  was  not  ne- 
cessary for  the  divorce,  and  that  it  should  be  utterly  abol- 
ished, and  no  other  authority  allowed  in  the  land,  but  the 
king's,      Cromwell  was  originally  a  soldier   by   profession. 


L  E  T  T  E  R     I  r  1 .  61' 

but  returning  from  the  wars  of  Italy,  liis  shrewdness  and 
audacity  reconinionded  hiui  to  high  personages  who  might 
happen  to  be  phiced  in  trying  circumstances.  Henry  was 
pleased  with  his  advice,  and  the  unscrupulous  Cromwell  was 
forthwith  made  privy  councillor.  When  the  convocation  of 
the  Clergy  met.  the  king  gave  his  private  signet  to  this  man, 
who  went  and  took  his  seat  among  the  bishops,  although  but 
a  layman,  and  proceeded  to  inform  them  of  tlie  king's  inten- 
tion to  make  himself  head  of  the  Church  in  place  of  the 
Pope,  and  warned  them  of  the  consequences  of  resistance  to 
the  royal  will !  Soon  afterwards,  he  was  appointed  the 
"  Royal  Vicegerent  and  Vicar-General."  With  this  title, 
he  was  empowered  "  to  exercise  all  the  spiritual  authority 
belonging  to  the  king,  for  the  due  administration  of  justice 
in  all  cases  touching  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  the 
godly  reformation  and  redress  of  errors,  heresies,  and  abuses 
in  the  said  Church."  From  this  language,  you  perceive  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  power  which  the  king  claimed  as 
•'head  of  the  Church,"  and  which  he  conferred  upon  his 
"Vicar-General,"  a  mere  layman  like  himself.  Now,  my 
ICpiscopalian  friend,  what  do  you  think  of  this  'i  You  well 
know  this  is  not  the  way  the  Episcopalians  of  the  present 
day  act.  They  do  not  allow  a  layman  to  take  a  seat  at  the 
head  of  the  bishops  in  their  General  Convention  ;  and  still  less 
do  they  authorise  a  layman  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  whole  Church,  and  reform  abuses,  &c.  They 
well  know  that  such  a  thing  would  be  a  virtual  surrender 
of  orders  and  Episcopacy.  And  yet,  this  was  the  process 
employed  to  bring  about  the  change  of  religion  in  Eng- 
land!  This  man,  as  the  king's  Vicegerent,  set  on  foot 
a  visitation  of  the  monasteries,  and  employed  as  his  assistants, 
some  of  the  worst  men  in  the  country.  Their  object  was  to 
take  possession  of  these  monasteries — but  in  order  to  have 
some  pretence,  at  least,  for  so  iniquitous  an  act,  men  were 
sent  out  to  visit  them,  who  would  be  sure  to  bring  back  an 
evil  report  concerning  their  condition.*  These  hallowed  in- 
stitutions were  condemned  upon  the  testimony  of  Cromwell 
and  his  minions,    without  any  opportunity  of  self-defence. 

«  This  is  admitted  by  several  Protestant  historians.  Even  Hume, 
the  Intter  enemy  of  the  Catholic  Church,  says:  "As  it  was  known 
that  the  king's  intention  in  this  visitation,  was  to  find  a  pretence  for 
abolishing  monasteries,  we  may  naturally  conclude  that  the  reports  of 
commissioners  are  very  little  to  be  relied  on.''   {Hin.  viii  c.  31.) 


62  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

The  king  then  desired  Parliament  to  pass  an  act  sequestering 
them  to  his  own  use — and  when  that  body  hesitated  to  com- 
ply, the  bloody  tyrant  exclaimed,  "  I  will  have  it  pass,  or  I 
will  have  some  of  your  heads."  The  members  knew  that 
this  was  no  idle  threat,  and  they  passed  the  bill, — by  which 
376  monasteries  became  the  property  of  the  king, — with  all 
their  lands,  gold  and  silver  ornaments,  &c.  &c.  But  this 
was  only  the  beginning.  Another  act  was  afterwards  passed 
by  which  all  the  remaining  monasteries  were  given  to  the 
king  and  his  assigns  !*  Many  of  these  monasteries  when 
visited  by  Cromwell's  agents,  were  literally  pillaged.  The 
very  chests  and  drawers  of  the  monks  and  nuns  were  ran- 
sacked and  rifled  of  their  contents,  and  the  altars  overthrown 
and  despoiled  !  This  immense  wealth,  obtained  by  robbery 
and  sacrilege,  was  speedily  absorbed  by  the  king  and  his 
favorites,  Cromwell  himself  getting  the  lion's  share, — no  less 
than  thirty  estates,  besides  a  palace  magnificently  furnished 
with  the  spoils  of  God's  altar.  Thus  was  this  man  the 
principal  agent  in  those  enormous  acts  of  robbery  and  sacrilege 
which  constituted  some  of  the  blackest  deeds  of  the  monster- 
tyrant  himself.  I  have  not  exaggerated  the  important  part 
he  took  in  the  religious  change  of  that  day.  Bishop  Short 
himself,  does  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  him  as  "  One  great 
instrument  of  the  Keformation."  (§  220.)  But  like  many 
other  great  villains,  he  soon  incurred  the  retributive  justice 
of  God.  Owing  to  one  of  his  intrigues,  he  forfeited  the 
approbation  of  his  royal  master,  and  his  doom  was  instantly 
sealed.  He  who  had  stained  his  soul  with  wholesale  robbe- 
ries and  sacrileges,  who  had  ruthlessly  turned  aged  monks 
and  defenceless  nuns  from  their  homes,  experienced  in  turn 
the  vengeance  of  the  tyrant.  He  was  suddenly  arrested  on 
the  charge  of  high  treason,  and  sent,  as  a  prisoner,  to  the 
tower.  He  was  so  generally  hated,  that  only  one  individual 
could  be  found  to  urge  a  petition  in  his  favor,- — and  that 
man  was  Thomas  Cranmer, — who  wrote  an  ambiguous  letter 
to  the  king,  praising  Cromwell's  diligence  in  the  royal  ser- 

*The  total  number  of  monasteries,  hospitals,  colleges  and  free  chap- 
els taken  by  the  king,  was  3182;  and  47,721  persons  were  thereby 
rendered  homeless  1  See  the  full  account,  in  that  Protest^int  author, 
Burns,  Eccl.  Law^  Art.  Monanteries.  Sir  Henry  Spelman,  in  his  History 
of  the  Fate  of  Sacrilege,  gives  a  list  of  all  the  peers  of  Parliament,  at 
the  time  the  act  was  passed  confiscating  the  monasteries,  and  shews 
the  calamities  which  befell  them  and  their  descendants. 


L  E  T  T  E  R     1 1 1  .  63 

vice,  and  adding  "  But  if  he  was  a  traitor,  he  was  ghid  it 
was  discovered.  But  he  prayed  tJod  earnestly  to  send  the 
king  such  a  counsellor  in  his  stead."  And  yet  Craumer, 
afterwards,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  gave  his  vote  in  favor  of 
the  death  of  Cromwell,  his  friend,  patron  and  associate! 
The  bloody  Cromwell  had  sent  others  to  the  block,  while  he 
was  prime  minister  and  all-powerful  at  court ;  and  now,  he 
himself,  was  sentenced  to  the  same  fate.  In  view  of  the 
execution,  craven-hearted  as  he  was  cruel,  he  begged  for  his 
life  in  the  humblest  terms:  "Most  gracious  prince,  I  cry 
for  mercy,  mercy,  mercy!"  But  he  cried  in  vain.  He  was 
led  to  the  scaffold.  And  what  do  you  think  he  did,  in  view 
of  death  V  Like  others,  in  similar  ciicumstances,  he  recanted 
his  errors,  and  died  in  the  Catholic  faith  I  ''I  have  been 
seduced,"  he  said.  •  but  bear  me  witness,  I  die  in  the  foith 
of  the  Catholic  Church."  Unhappy  man  !  he  was  willing  to 
live,  without  that  faith,  and  even  to  subvert  it,  while  he 
could  enjoy  the  royal  ftivor,  and  secure  unbounded  wealth  : 
but  when  death  and  judgment  stared  him  in  the  face,  he  was 
anxious  to  take  shelter  behind  that  injured  faith  I  And  yet, 
according  to  Short,  he  was  a  "great  instrument,"  and  ac- 
cording to  Fox,  a  "  valiant  soldier"  in  the  English  schisni ! 
No  doubt  of  it.  He  and  Henry  were  both  very  "  valiant" 
in  robberies,  murders,  and  other  revolting  crimes — very 
'•  valiant"  until  they  were  about  to  appear  before  the  Eter- 
nal Judge. 

In  this  connection,  I  might  Introduce  the  names  of  several 
ef  Henry's  wives,  who  were  zealous  abettors  of  the  new 
worship  and  liturgy.  But  as  they  were  only  subordinate 
agents,  I  shall  onl}'  notice  one  or  two  of  them,  very  briefly. 
We  have  seen  that  Anne  Bolejn  was  executed  for  her  con- 
jugal infidelity.  Now,  hear  what  Short  says  concerning  this 
woman.  •'  The  cause  of  the  Reformation,"  says  he,  "  met 
with  a  serious  blow  in  the  death  of  Anne  Boleyn,  who  had 
uniformly  exerted  her  influence  in  its  favor,  and  was  proba- 
bly very  Instrumental  in  promoting  a  translation  of  the 
Bible  now  going  forward."  (§203.)  You  see,  then,  that 
this  woman  was  an  Important  agent  in  this  "godly" 
work, — the  "  Reformation,"  so  called.  And  yet,  what  a  life 
she  led  with  the  king,  and  with  others  I  Short,  after  prais- 
ing her  as  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  new  religion,  Is  naturally 
very  loth  to  admit  the  truth  of  all  the  charges  against  her, 
and  yet  he  Is  forced  to  make  this  acknowledgment:   "She 


64  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

had  undoubtedly  been  guilty  of  indiscretion  in  the  intimacy 
which  she  had  used  towards  some  of  her  male  attendants." 
{Ihid.)  Anxious  to  protect  her  memory  on  account  of  her 
services  to  the  new  religion,  Short  could  not  well  admit 
more, — but  he  has  admitted  too  much  for  her  honor.  It  is 
difficult  to  reconcile  her  "indiscretion,"  with  virtue  and 
purity — but  there  can  be  little  doubt  of  her  having  been 
guilty  of  something  worse  ;  otherwise,  how  could  Cranmer 
have  been  justified  in  pronouncing  judgment  against  her — 
and  besides,  unless  the  evidence  against  her  had  been  very 
strong,  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  the  king  would  have  re- 
quired her  execution.  He  loved  another,  it  is  true,  but  he 
could  have  set  aside  Anne  Boleyn,  as  he  afterwards  did  his 
fourth  wife,  Anne  of  Cleves,  without  sending  her  to  the 
block ;  disgracing  with  her  his  daughter  Elizabeth,  after- 
wards queen.*  Howver,  this  is  not  the  place  to  argue  the 
question.  It  is  enough  for  us,  that  she  was  tried,  condemned, 
and  executed  by  Protestants,  for  the  heinous  crime  of  adul- 
tery. Yet  this  woman  was  very  zealous  for  the  new  reli- 
gion, and  the  Protestant  Bible  I  She  was  an  active  oppo- 
nent of  the  "  corruptions  of  Popery,"  and  very  anxious  for 
a  "reformation"  of  the  Church  I  Certainly  she  was  a  wor- 
thy associate  and  co-laborer  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Thomas 
Cromwell ! 

Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  another  prominent  actor 
in  the  changes  of  those  times,  King  Edward  VI.  At  the 
death  of  King  Henry,  his  son  by  Jane  Seymour,  succeeded 
to  the  throne,  at  the  early  age  of  nine  years.  He  had,  of 
course,  been  brought  up  in  the  new  doctrines  ;  and  according 
to  Cranmer,  although  so  young,  he  had  more  theology  in 
his  little  finger,  than  he  and  his  brother  bishops  had  in  their 
whole  bodies  !  I  shall  not  dispute  this  assertion.  His  reign 
was  an  important  period  in  the  history  of  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon-Prayer. It  was  during  that  reign,  as  we  have  seen, 
that  the  book  was  first  put  forth,  in  any  thing  like  its  pre- 
sent shape.     His  name  is  therefore  intimately  associated  with 

*  Her  secret  connection  with  the  king,  long  before  the  divorce,  is 
assumed  as  true,  by  Shakspcare,  who  lived  much  nearer  those  times, 
thus : 

" Last,  that  the  Lady  Anne,        , 

' '  Whom  the  king  hath  in  secrecy  long  married, 
"  This  day  was  viewed  in  open,  as  his  queen." 

King  Henry  VIII.,  Act  3. 


LETTEUIII.  65 

it,  ulthough  his  agency  in  the  matter  was  more  of  a  passive 
than  active  character.  He  is  said  to  have  been  a  pious  and 
well-disposed  youth.  This  may  have  been  the  case,  although 
some  of  his  acts  do  not  exhibit  him  in  an  amiable  aspect, — 
especially  his  harsh  and  uncharitable  behavior  towards  his 
sister  Mary,  to  whom  he  was  unwilling  to  allow  the  rites 
of  her  religion,  even  in  her  own  house,  and  whom  he  further 
wronged  by  trying  to  exclude  her  from  the  throne,  although 
she  was  the  legitimate  heir  to  the  crown — the  latter  act, 
however,  was  the  result  of  "earnest  persuasions  and  entreaties 
from  his  Protestant  advisers.  He  was  a  mere  boy — only 
fifteen  when  he  died — and  for  the  most  part,  he  was  nothing 
but  a  puppet  in  the  hands  of  others — and  in  giving  him  a 
place  among  the  prominent  personages  of  those  times,  it  is 
more  on  account  of  what  was  done  by  others,  in  his  name, 
than  on  account  of  his  own  acts.  Under  Henry,  the 
"Church  of  England"  was  severed  from  the  Catholic  Church, 
but  it  was  under  the  boy-king  that  it  became  thoroughly 
Protestant.  "During  the  short  reign  of  Edward,"  says 
Short,  it  became  entirely  Protestant,  and  in  point  of  doc- 
trine, assumed  its  present  form.  This  step,  however,  was 
made  rather  by  the  decree  of  the  government  than  by  the 
conviction  of  the  nation."  (§811.)  I  beg  the  reader  to 
mark  well  these  two  sentences  from  an  Episcopalian  histo- 
rian, especially  the  latter  one.  It  shews  the  true  origin  of 
that  Church, — a  "decree  of  the  government,"  under  the 
administration  of  a  boy  ! 

Under  the  reign  of  Edward,  the  work  of  plundering  the 
Church  was  renewed  with  fresh  vigor, — and  what  the  ra- 
pacity of  Henry  had  spared,  now  fell  before  the  equally 
greedy  demands  of  his  successor.  Colleges,  chapels,  hospi- 
tals, chantries,  &c.,  left  untouched  by  Henry,  were  now 
seized  for  the  use  of  Edward,  together  with  the  lands,  tene- 
ments, rents,  tithes,  &c.  belonging  thereto.  In  addition  to 
this,  the  gold  and  silver  plate  of  the  shrines  and  altars  were 
also  taken  for  the  king's  use,  and  the  Churches  were  strip- 
ped of  their  images  and  ornaments.  Here,  again,  were 
robbery  and  sacrilege,  perpetrated  on  the  most  extensive 
scale.  Viewed  in  thi.«  light,  the  reign  of  Edward  was  not 
only  an  ignoble  rei^a,  but  a  wicked  and  pernicious  reign. 
It  was  powerless  to  do  good,  but  potent  in  mischief  and  de- 
struction. In  the  good  old  Catholic  times,  it  was  the  honor 
of  the  monarch  to  build  up,  to  erect  monuments  of  charity. 


66  LETTERS     TO     AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 

learning  and  piety — but  it  was  the  disgrace  of  Henry,  and 
his  son  Edward,  to  pull  down  and  destroy,  to  sqander  upon 
their  passions  and  parasites,  the  munificent  foundations  of  their 
pious  ancestors.  To  such  an  extent  was  this  robbery  and 
pillage  of  the  Church  cari-ied,  that  even  Protestant  historians 
have  not  regretted  that  the  reign  of  Edward  was  cut  short  by 
his  early  death.  Thus  says  one  of  them  :  "  Edward's  death, 
I  cannot  reckon  for  an  infelicity  to  the  Church  of  England,  for 
being  ill-principled  in  himself,  and  easily  inclined  to  em- 
brace such  counsels  as  were  offered  to  him,  it  is  not  to  be 
thought,  but  that  the  rest  of  the  bishopricks,  before  suffi- 
ciently impoverished,  must  have  followed  Durham,  and  the 
poor  Church  be  left  as  destitute  of  lands  and  ornaments,  as 
when  she  came  into'  the  world  in  her  natural  nakedness." 
{Heylin,  Ref.  Pref.  p.  4.)  Thus  does  this  writer  assert  that 
scarcely  any  thing  would  have  been  lelt  to  the  Church,  had 
Edward  lived, — whom  he  does  not  hesitate  to  call,  "ill- 
principled  in  himself!" 

I  will  now  give  you  a  brief  sketch  of  another  hero  of  those 
disastrous  times.  During  the  minority  of  Edward,  a  number 
of  executors  were  appointed  to  assist  the  young  king  in  his 
royal  duties — of  these,  the  leading-spirit  was  the  Earl  of 
Hertford.  This  man  immediately  became  a  most  active  par- 
tizan  of  the  new  worship,  and  was  made  Duke  of  Somerset. 
That  he  was  the  special  patron  of  the  "Godly  Reformation," 
as  it  was  impiously  called,  I  shall  prove  by  the  following 
passage  from  Short's  History :  ' '  The  fall  of  the  Duke  of 
Somerset,  and  his  execution,  produced  no  great  effect  on  the 
Reformation  ;  he  had  proved,  during  his  power,  a  firm  and 
zealous  patron  of  those  who  promoted  it,  and  his  advice 
and  his  example  had  co-operated  to  fix  the  love  of  pure  and 
simple  Christianity  so  strongly  on  his  nephew's  mind,  that 
his  loss  in  this  particular  was  scarcely  felt."  (§328.)  Yet 
this  man  was  the  most  active  agent  in  the  dreadful  sacrileges 
which  disgraced  that  reign.  He  was  virtually  king,  and  the 
wholesale  pillage  which  was  carried  on,  was  chiefly  through 
and  by  him.  He  was  foremost  among  the  plunderers.  He 
enriched  himself  with  the  spoils  of  the  Church.  Having 
thus  accumulated  enormous  wealth,  he  resolved  to  build  him- 
self a  magnificent  palace.  As  a  site  for  the  edifice,  he  se- 
lected a  piece  of  land,  on  which  stood  three  Episcopal  houses 
and  one  parish  Church — all  of  these  buildings  he  razed  to 
the  groimd,  and  used  the  materals  in  constructing  his  palace  ! 


LETTERIII.  67 

He  afterwards  needed  more  materials,  and  pullod  down  ano- 
ther church  and  two  chapels  for  stones  and  timber  !  Thus 
did  the  "  zealous  patron"  of  the  new  worship  jtull  down  the 
churches  of  the  31ost  lli^h,  in  order  to  build  a  ])alace  for 
himself  I*  What  audacity  and  impiety!  One  shu.lders  at 
the  thought  of  such  deeds !  And  yet  is  it  not  c(jually 
shocking  to  the  moral  .sense,  to  see  such  a  man  applauded  as 
the  agent  of  a  "  godly  work?"  Bishop  Short  says  of  him, 
in  connection  with  the  passage  above  quoted,  "  His  love  for 
the  Reformation  had  been  constant  and  sincere  ;  but  he  gained 
far  too  great  a  portion  of  Church  property  to  be  deemed  dis- 
interested in  the  share  which  he  had  in  the  destruction  of 
ecclesiastical  bodies."  Is  not  this  a  most  extraordinary  pas- 
sage ?  What  a  contradiction  it  involves  I  Somerset  was 
"sincere,"  and  yet  he  was  not  "disinterested."  Bishop 
Short  has  acted  wisely  in  saying  nothing  explicit  about  Som- 
erset's acts  of  Church  demolition— such  iniquity  in  a  patron 
of  the  "  Beformation,"  can  only  be  referred  to  in  such  a 
general  phrase  as  "  destruction  of  ecclesiastical  bodies."  It 
must  be  manifest  to  the  impartial  reader,  that  in  Somerset 
the  love  of  the  "  Reformation"  was  only  a  love  of  the  spoils 
of  the  Church.  He  made  a  "gain  of  godliness,"  as  was 
the  general  plan  of  the  Reformation  in  the  language  of  Short. 
(§375,  note.) 

The  Duke  of  Somerset,  a  plunderer  and  destroyer  of  (Jod's 
temples,  like  another  Cain,  imbrued  his  hands  in  his  bro- 
ther's blood.  He  had  him  condemned  without  a  trial,  and 
then  signed  the  warrant  under  which  he  was  executed  !  But 
the  Divine  vengeance  soon  overtook  him.  His  wealtli,  power 
and  misdeeds,  had  led  to  the  formation  of  a  party  against 
liim,  at  the  head  of  which  was  the  Earl  of  Warwick,  who 
were  bent  on  his  destruction.  The  plans  succeeded  !  The 
duke  was  arrested,  sent  to  prison,  and  soon  afterwards  pub- 
licly executed  as  a  felon — a  fit  end  for  such  a  miscreant. 

Another  "zealous  patron"  of  the  new  worship  was  this 
Earl  of  Warwick,  the  rival  and  successor  of  Somerset,  in 
the  office  of  "  Protector"  to  the  young  king.  Like  his  mi- 
serable predecessor,  he  was  enriched  with  the  spoils  of  the 
Church,  and  he  was  made  Duke  of  Northumberland.  Among 
other  Church  possessions  which  he  held,  was  the  bishopric  of 

*  See  these  siicrile.viious  acts  in  th'  "history    t'    h,'  Re  ormation," 
bj'  Ilevlin,  and  that  by  Soames,  both  Protestants. 

7 


68  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Durham.  Under  his  auspices  the  work  of  piHage  was  eagerly 
carried  on,  until  the  Church  was  indeed  nearly  "  as  naked 
as  she  came  into  the  world."  The  clergy  who  had  not  been 
executed  or  driven  out  of  the  country,  were  reduced  to  such 
poverty  as  that  many  of  them  were  compelled  to  work  as  car- 
penters and  masons,  and  sometimes  as  menial  servants  in 
gentlemen's  houses  !  Thus  too,  were  they  punished  for  their 
weakness  in  yielding  to  the  schismatical  innovations  of  the 
civil  power.  When  the  young  king  approached  his  end,  the 
Duke  of  Northumberland,  anxious  for  the  "  Godly  Refor- 
mation," persuaded  him  to  make  a  will,  setting  aside  the 
Princess  Mary,  his  legitin)ate  successor  to  the  throne,  be- 
cause she  was  a  Catholic !  This  was  done  with  the  concur- 
rence of  Cranmer,  although  that  man  had  sworn  to  maintain 
the  succession  as  established  by  Henry  !  When  the  judges 
and  crown-lawyers  were  called  upon  to  prepare  the  legal 
papers  for  thus  altering  the  succesi  i  m,  they  boldly  declai-ed 
that  it  could  not  be  done,  that  the  succession  had  been  fixed 
by  statute,  and  could  not  be  altered  without  treason.  How- 
ever, their  opposition  was  overcome  by  threats  and  promises, 
and  the  legal  instrument  was  prepared  and  signed.  But  the 
attempt  was  in  vain.  For  once  justice  prevailed  over  ini- 
quity, and  Mary  was  acknowledged  queen  of  the  nation. 
Northumberland  having  been  guilty  of  treason  in  his  effort 
to  set  aside  the  lawful  heir  to  the  throne,  he  was  arrested, 
and  after  due  trial,  condemned  to  be  executed.  His  zeal  for 
the  Protestant  cause  immediately  forsook  him,  and  when 
about  to  la}'  his  head  upon  the  block,  he  recanted  his  errors, 
and  exhorted  his  hearers  to  return  to  the  Catholic  fiiith  !  "I 
was  led,"  said  he,  "by  false  teachers  and  preachers  some 
time  before  King  Henry's  death,  and  I  have  been  so  ever 
since,  which  is  a  great  part  of  this,  my  death.  Therefore, 
beware,  good  people,  lest  ye  be  led  and  deceived  by  these 
seditious  and  lewd  preachers,  who  have  opened  the  book  and 
know  not  how  to  shut  it  again,  to  turn  home  again  to  the 
true  religion — to  the  Catholic  faith,  which  hath  been  taught 
you  of  old." 

There  are  others  upon  whom  I  must  bestow,  at  least  a 
passing  notice,  in  reviewing  the  characters  of  the  chief  ac- 
tors in  the  drama,  or  rather  tragedy,  of  the  "Reformation." 
Among  these  are  Ridley,  Latimer  and  Craniner.  I  greup 
them  together,  because  their  names  are  generally  associated 
in  the  minds  of  Protestants,  as  the  three  principal  "  njartyrs" 


L  E  T  T  E  R      1 1  r  .  69 

of  thoir  religion,  who  fell  together  under  "bloody  Mary." 
Many  wlio  have  been  accustomed  to  read  only  one-sided  bio- 
graphies of  these  men,  have  been  led  to  venerate  them  as 
models  of  every  Christian  virtue.  I  am  sorry  to  say,  that 
their  conduct  was  not  in  reality  such  as  to  entitle  them  to 
the  honors  of  saintship  and  martyrdom.  This  I  propose  to 
show  by  unquestionable  proofs.  Ridley  was  a  Catholic  priest 
when  Henry  commenced  the  English  schism,  and  was  soon 
foremost  among  those  who  complied  with  the  changes  of  that 
cruel  despot,  and  aided  Cranmer  in  composing  the  Prayer- 
Book  and  Homilies.  For  his  services,  Henry  made  him 
Bishop  of  Rochester.  He  was,  of  course,  very  zealous  in 
defending  the  prerogatives  of  his  royal  patron.  He  accord- 
ingly evinced  his  devotion  by  sending  to  the  stake  such  Ca- 
tholics as  refused  to  accept  Henry  for  their  Pope,  as  he 
himself  had  done  ;  at  the  same  time  he  sent  to  the  stake  Pro- 
testants who  rejected  Transubstantiation.  Thus  we  find  him, 
at  the  very  outset,  stained  with  innocent  blood,  a  cruel  and 
murderous  persecutor.  After  the  accession  of  Edward,  he 
followed  in  the  wake  of  Cranmer,  and  then  assisted  in  put- 
ting to  death  all  such  as  did  not  conform  to  the  new  doctrinal 
standard  then  set  up — the  standard  of  Edward  and  Cranmer. 
For  his  services  under  this  reign,  he  was  made  Bishop  of 
London,  in  place  of  the  Catholic  Bishop  Bonner,  who  had 
been  deprived  and  sent  to  prison  by  these  "  Reformers." 
Lastly,  Ridley  was  guilty  of  high  treason.  He  was  a  sup- 
porter of  Lady  Jane  Grey,  whom,  with  other  Protestants,  he 
set  up  in  opposition  to  the  lawful  Queen,  Mary,  solely  be- 
cause the  latter  was  a  Catholic  !  This  man,  like  other  "  gos- 
pelers,"  prostituted  the  pulpit  to  their  treasonable  designs, 
and  held  forth  at  St.  Paul's  Cross  in  behalf  of  the  claims  of 
Jane,  and  inveighed  against  Mary,  acting  upon  the  principle 
so  ftilsely  ascribed  to  Catholics,  that  "the  end  justifies  the 
means."  But  when  he  found  that  his  treasonable  project 
had  foiled,  he  sought  to  propitiate  the  queen  by  making 
humble,  and  hypocritical  apologies.  But  it  was  too  late. 
He  was  arrested  and  committed  to  prison  as  a  traitor.  H  v- 
ing  been  found  guilty  of  rebellion  and  high  treason,  he  w  s 
sentenced  to  death  according  to  the  law  of  the  land.  But 
in  view  of  death,  he  renounced  his  Protestantism,  and  con- 
formed to  the  ancient  faith  !  But  as  it  availed  him  nothing, 
he  relapsed  again  into  Protestantism,  and  thus  he  perished 
for  his  treason  and  rebellion.     Such  was  Ridley.     How  little 


70  LETTERS     TO     AN. EPISCOPALIAN. 

does  such  a  umn  deserve  the  respect  of  posterity  !  A  pliant 
tool  and  sycliopbant  of  the  monster  Henry  VIII.,  aiding  that 
wretch,  and  afterwards  Edward  VI.,  in  putting  to  death  both 
Catholics  and  Protestants ;  guilty  of  rebellion  and  treason 
under  Queen  Mary,  and  finally  renouncing  his  Protestantism 
in  A^iew  of  death  and  judgment !  Was  not  he  a  pretty  saint 
and  martyr  '?  A  martyr  indeed  !  A  man  who  renounces  his 
faith  at  the  prospect  of  death,  a  martyr !  The  idea  is  absurd. 
Guilty  of  the  blood  of  others,  and  guilty  of  treason,  his  fate 
was  only  what  he  deserved. 

Let  us  now  take  a  glance  at  Latimer,  another  member  of 
this  trio  of  "Martyrs."  We  find  that  he  was  a  fit  associate 
for  such  comijany.  He  commenced  his  public  career  as  a 
violent  declaimer  against  Melancthon  and  the  German  "Re- 
formers." He  next  appeared  as  their  defender  and  advocate. 
Then,  again,  at  the  instance  of  Cardinal  Wolsey,  he  publicly 
renounced  their  opinions  as  false  and  pernicious.  After 
the  expiration  of  two  years  more,  he  again  embraced  their 
opinions :  and  for  so  doing  was  excommunicated  by  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer.  He  then  made  a  second  abjuration  of  these 
errors,  and  thus  narrowly  escaped  the  stake.  For  a  third 
time  he  relapsed  into  the  same  errors,  and  when  condemned 
by  his  ecclesiastical  superior,  he  appealed  to  the  king.  But 
finding  the  royal  heart  unmoved,  he  again  acknowledged  and 
renounced  his  errors,  begging  pardon  and  promising  amend- 
ment. Having  powerful  friends  at  court,  one  of  whom  was 
Anne  Boleyn,  the  queen,  by  whom  he  was  retained  as  chap- 
lain, ho  was  soon  restored  to  favor;  and  the  king  being 
pleased  with  his  violent  invectives  against  the  Pope,  gave 
him  the  Bishopric  of  Worcester.  Subsequently  he  opposed 
the  "Six  Articles"  of  the  king,  and  was  deprived  of  his 
Bishopric  and  sent  to  prison.  On  the  death  of  Henry  he 
was  set  at  liberty,  and  became  court  preacher  to  Edward. 
Latimer  had  united  with  Ridley  and  others  in  sending  to  the 
stake  both  Protestants  and  Catholics  ;  the  former  for  denying 
the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  (which  was  held  by  the 
Church  of  England  until  the  death  of  Henry)  and  the  latter 
for  holding  the  Pope's  Supremacy.  He  was,  in  particular, 
one  of  the  inquisitors  under  Edward,  by  whom  were  hunted 
down  all  who  ventured  to  diifer  from  the  doctrinal  standard 
of  the  day,  and  by  whom  Joan  of  Kent,  a  half-witted  Pro- 
testant woman  was  condemned,  and  afterwards  burnt  at  the- 
stake !     But  the  chalice  which  he  so  barbarously  adminis- 


LETTKR     III 


71 


tered  to  others  was  soon  returned  to  his  own  lips.  Like 
Ridley  and  other  leading  Protestants  of  the  time,  he  united 
politics  with  his  religion,  and  at  the  close  of  P]d ward's  life, 
preached  against  IMary,  the  lawful  heir  of  the  crown.  For 
this  treasonable  conduct  he  was  arrested,  sent  to  prison,  and 
subsequently  burnt  at  the  stake — thus  suffering  the  punish- 
ment which  he  had  inflicted  upon  others  in  the  day  of  his 
power. 

Now  look  at  this  man's  conduct  and  tell  me,  was  he  not  a 
pretty  ••reformer?"  After  embracing  Protestantism,  he 
renounced  it  three  distinct  times,  and  finally  returned  to  it 
again,  and  died  in  its  profession.  It  is  therefore  evident 
that  he  either  did  not  know  which  was  the  true  religion,  or 
if  he  knew  which  it  was,  he  had  too  little  regard  for  it  to 
adhere  to  it  in  times  of  danger.  In  either  case  he  was  unfit 
for  the  important  office  of  enlightening  and  guiding  others 
upon  the  subject.  He  was  moreover,  a  ruthless  persecutor, 
and  a  most  inconsistent  one  ;  for,  destitute  himself  of  any  fixed 
religion,  he  put  to  death  men  and  women  for  their  doctrinal 
opinions,  and  indeed,  for  holding  what  he  himself  had  once 
held,  if  he  did  not  hold  it  at  that  very  time!  He  was  also 
as  I  have  stated,  guilty  of  rebellion  and  treason  against  the 
legitimate  sovereign  of  the  country.  I  think  there  are  but 
few  Episcopalians,  who,  when  made  acquainted  with  these 
facts,  will  not  be  ashamed  to  acknowledge  him  as  one  of 
their  first  bishops,  one  of  their  ''reformers"  and  founders, 
one  of  their  martyrs.* 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  third  personage  in  this  little  "band 
of  martyrs,"  as  certain  Protestant  historians  and  lecturers 
sometimes  call  them  ;  I  mean  Thomas  Cranmer,  the  first 
Protestant  Ai'chbishop  of  Canterbury.  It  is  well  ivnown  to 
all  that  this  man  was  the  leading  spirit,  after  King  Henry, 
in  the  ecclesiastical  changes  of  that  period.  He  did  far 
more  to  promote  those  changes  than  any  other  ecclesiastic. 
He  was  in  a  certain  sense  the  founder  of  the  Churcli  of  Eng- 
land :  above  all  he  was  more  than  any  other  man,  the  author 
of  the  '  Book  of  Common  Prayer.'  A  brief  sketch  of  his 
career  is  therefore  necessary  to  our  purpose.  In  presenting 
him  to  the  reader,  I  would  not  hold  him  up  as  represented 

*For  the  facts  above  given  in  tlie  career  of  Latimer,  I  refer  to  Lin- 
gard's  History  of  Enyland,  vol.  vii.,  thivp.  3 — the  most  accurate  his- 
torv  of  that  counfrv  ever  written. 


72    '  LETTERS     TO^    AN    EPTSCOP  ALI A  N  . 

merely  by  his  enemies — but  simply  as  he  appears  in  his  owra 
life,  in  his  acts  and  deeds,  as  recorded  on  the  pages  of  im- 
partial history.  Leaving  it  to  his  friends  to  paint  him  as  a' 
saint,  and  to  his  enemies  to  paint  him  as  a  devil,  I  shall 
content  myself  with  merely  spreading  before  you  some  of  his 
deeds — and  by  them  ask  you  to  judge  whether  he  was  wor- 
thy of  your  respect  and  veneration. 

In  early  manhood,  Cranmer  was  a  Fellow  of  Cambridge^ 
University.  By  a  regulation  of  that  institution — a  regula- 
tion still  continued — he  was  bound  to  lead  a  single  life,  and' 
had  so  promised.  But  becoming  enamored  with  a  young 
girl,  he  married  her  clandestinely.  He  then  secretly  viola- 
ted the  condition  on  which  he  held  his  fellowship,  and  con- 
tinued to  hold  it  until  his  marriage  was  discovered  by  the 
authorities  of  the  institution,  when  he  was  dismissed  for  his 
duplicity  and  perfidy.*  Certainly  this  was  not  a  very  pro- 
mising beginning  for  a  young  man.  Had  he  first  resigned  his 
fellowship,  and  then  married,  as  is  now  frequently  done,  he 
would  have  been  free  from  our  censure.  But  the  baseness  of 
the  act  consisted  in  his  holding  his  fellowship  while  secretly 
violating  the  condition  on  which  he  received  and  held  it.  It 
was  shocking  duplicity. 

But  Cranmer's  public  career  commenced  with  Henry's^ 
eftbrts  to  obtain  a  divorce  from  his  lawful  wife,  in  order  tO' 
marry  one  of  her  maids  of  honor  with  whom  he  was  smitten . 
In  Henry's  perplexity,  when  the  Pope  would  not  permit  such 
a  crime,  Cranmer  was  bold  enough  to  suggest  that  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Universities  would  answer  instead  of  the  Pope's^ 
authority.  The  king  was  pleased  with  the  suggestion,  and 
at  once  recognized  Cranmer  as  the  man  for  his  purpose.  He 
accordingly  took  him  into  his  service,  and  his  subsequent 
career  shows  that  he  was  a  faithful  servant  of  that  foul  and 
bloody  tyrant,  to  the  end  of  his  reign.  This  fact  alone — his- 
continued  attaeliment  and  subserviency  to  such  a  monster — 
tells  terribly  against  the  character  of  Cranmer.  Whenever 
the  king  wanted  to  have  the  sanction  of  religion  for  any  of 
his  iniquities.  Cranmer  was  the  pliant  tool  made  use  of.  No- 
matter  how  wicked  the  deed  was,  Cranmer  was  the  man  for 
his  purpose.  Having  adopted  his  suggestion  as  to  the  di- 
vorce, he  despatched  him  abroad  to  collect  the  opinions  of 
the  Universities  as  to  the  legality  of  the  act.      Among  other 

*As  Protestant  authority  for  th  .s  fact,  Watcrworth  refers  to  Words- 
toorth's  Ucc.  Bioff.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  432. 


LETTER     III.  7^ 

countries  Cranmcr  visited  Germany,  but  there  the  project 
met  with  but  little  favor  even  from  the  Protestants,  Melanc- 
thon,  Luther  and  others.  But  if  he  failed  in  the  business  of 
the  king,  he  was  not  without  success  in  his  private  aflFairs. 
In  the  first  place,  he  imbibed  Lutheran  ideas  more  exten- 
sively :  and  in  the  second  place,  he  was  smitten  with  the 
charms  of  a  niece  of  a  Protestant  divine,  and  forthwith  took 
her  to  wife  although  he  had  left  a  wife  behind  him  in  Eng- 
land !*  Thus  was  Thomas  Cranmer,  the  bold  opposer  of  the 
Pope,  guilty  of  bigamy.  This  marriage  was  contracted  also 
in  violation  of  his  promise  of  celibacy,  to  which  as  a  priest 
he  was  bound  by  the  canons !  He  brought  his  wife  to  Eng- 
land, and  there  lived  with  her  privately,  although  all  the 
time  professing  to  lead  a  single  life,  as  the  law  then  required 
of  the  clergy  !  Subsequently,  when  it  became  apparent  that 
the  king  would  not  tolerate  marriage  in  the  clergy,  Cranmer 
sent  his  second  wife  back  to  Germany  ;  but  what  he  did 
with  the  fii'st  one  I  have  not  learned. 

The  king  finding  Cranmer  the  right  sort  of  a  man  for  his 
designs,  made  him  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  thus  Pri- 
mate of  the  Church  of  England.  But  there  was  a  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  his  induction  into  office.  All  the  preceding 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  from  Augustine  down,  had  been 
commissioned  by  the  Pope,  and  had  taken  the  vow  of  fidelity 
to  him  as  head  of  the  Church.  But  Cranmer,  as  well  as  the 
king,  had  virtuall}'  rejected  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and 
how  could  he  consistently  accept  the  office  at  his  hands  and 
make  the  usual  vow  of  submission  and  obedience  ?  To  evade 
this  difficulty,  it  was  determined  to  send  a  sub.stitute  to 
Kome  to  take  the  oath  of  obedience  to  the  Pope  in  the  name 
of  Cranmer  I  This  was  a  cunning,  but  very  dishonorable 
device.  Qui  facit  per  alium,  facit  per  se,  is  an  universally 
acknowledged  maxim  of  the  law.  It  was  the  same  as  if  he 
had  done  the  act  himself,  and  the  deception  practiced  only 
aggravated  the  offijnce.  But  the  difficulty  was  not  all  over. 
When  the  huUs  or  necessary  papers  for  Cranmer's  consecra- 
tion had  arrived,  there  was  another  obstacle  in  the  way.  A 
similar  oath  of  obedience  to  the  Pope  as  Chrisfs  Vicar,  was. 
in  the  consecration  service.  What  now  was  to  be  done  ? 
Another  piece  of  chicanery  was  resorted  to.  AVhen  the  ser- 
vice was  about  to  commence,  Cranmer  withdrew  to  a  corner 

""  For  this  fact,  see  also  Wordsworth,  p.  443. 


74  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAISr, 

of  the  Church,  and  in  the  presence  of  three  or  four  persons 
made  a  formal  protest  that  by  the  oath  he  was  about  to  take, 
he  did  not  intend  to  bind  himself  to  anything  contrary  to 
the  law  of  God,  the  rights  of  the  king,  &c.  After  this 
contemptible  farce,  he  was  consecrated  like  other  Catholic- 
prelates,  and  swore  "  to  be  faithful  and  obedient  to  the  Holy 
Apostolic  Roman  Church,  and  to  Pope  Clement  VIII.,  and 
to  his  successors."  Thus  did  Thomas  Cranmer  swear  to  be 
true  and  faithful  to  the  Pope,  while  at  the  same  moment,  he 
had  in  heart  and  intention  rejected  his  authority  :  he  solemn- 
ly swore  that  he  would  do  what  he  had  already  determined' 
not  to  do  ;  in  short,  he  was  guilty  of  perjury.  Thus  did  he 
obtain,  and  enter  upon  the  highest  spiritual  office  in  the 
land,  with  a  perjured  conscience,  and  also  having  a  wife  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  the  Church  at  that  time,  as  it  always  had 
been  from  the  earliest  times. 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  Cranmer  after  his  perfidious  con- 
seci'ation,  was  to  pronounce  for  Henry  his  long-wished-for 
divorce  from  Catharine,  which  was  a  high-handed  and  most 
iniquitous  proceeding,  especially  as  it  was  well  known  to 
Cranmer  that  Henry's  passion  for  Anne  Boleyn  was  at  the 
bottom  of  the  movement.  Thus  the  first  act  of  the  first 
Protestant  Archbishop,  was  to  separate  those  whom  God  had 
joined  together,  contrary  to  the  Divine  law.  I  have  already 
called  Cranmer  the  pliant  tool  of  Henry.  Such  he  empha- 
tically was,  especially  in  the  transaction  of  that  beastly 
tyrant  with  the  other  sex.  He  afterwards,  as  I  have  related 
in  another  letter,  divorced  Henry  from  Anne  Boleyn,  and 
subsequently  when  the  king  wislicd  to  take  a  fourth  wifo  in 
Ann  of  Cleves,  Cranmer  was  commissioned  to  enquire  into 
the  validity  of  an  alledged  impediment  on  her  part,  and 
which  he  pronounced  not  to  exist,  and  they  were  married. 
But  afterwards,  when  the  king  wished  to  set  her  aside  for  a 
new  fiivorite,  the  obliging  Ci'anmer  was  ready  with  his  li- 
cense, and  pronounced  another  divorce  on  the  ground  of  that 
very  impediment  which  he  had  previously  decided  not  to  ex- 
ist !  Thus  did  he  aid  and  abet  that  filthy  tyrant  in  all  his 
adulteries,  at  the  expense  of  his  own  truthfulness  and  honor. 

Henry  as  "  supreme  head"  of  the  Church,  published  "  six 
articles"  of  religion,  affirming  among  other  things  Transub- 
stantiation.  Auricular  Confession,  and  Celibacy  of  the  Priest- 
hood, and  when  these  articles  were  first  proposed,  Cranmei^ 
argued  against  them  with  all  his  eloquence,  as  contrary  to 


L  K  T  T  E  n     T 1 1 .  tb 

his  convictions  of  Y'\g}\t  anil  duty;  but  afterwards,  when  the 
king  was  determined  to  have  them  as  the  creed  of  his 
Church,  and  re»|uirod  all  to  receive  them  on  the  severest 
penalties,  Crannier  was  obliging  enough  to  comply  with  the 
wishes  of  his  royal  master,  having  of  course,  at  the  same 
time,  a  due  regard  for  his  own  safety.  Bishop  Short,  who 
is  very  cautious  in  handling  such  delicate  topics,  tells  us — 
"He  (Cranmer)  disliked  several  of  the  articles,  and  abhorred 
the  severity  of  the  act ;  but  his  opinions  were  not  now  dia- 
metrically contrary  to  the  first  article,  (Transubstantiation) 
and  he  complied.  Latimer  and  Shaxton  on  the  other  hand, 
esteemed  it  contradictory  to  the  word  of  God,  and  conscien- 
tiously resigned  their  sees."  {Hist,  of  Ch.  of  Eng.,  §  218.) 
Here  Short  tells  us  that  Cranmer  ' '  disliked  several  of  the 
articles."  The  term  "disliked,"  is  a  very  remarkable  one 
to  use  in  such  a  connection.  He  "disliked"  Transubstan- 
tiation, celibacy,  and  confession,  as  rf  these  things  were  mere 
trifles  to  be  received  or  rejected  according  to  one's  taste  or 
convenience  !  Such  may  indeed  have  been  Cranmer's  opin- 
ion of  them,  but  surely  such  is  not  Bishop  Short's.  In  the 
previous  paragraph,  Short,  after  describing  the  six  articles, 
tells  us,  that  "Cranmer  argued  against  the  admission  of 
them  with  all  the  eloquence  and  force  of  which  he  was  pos- 
sessed." This  would  seem  to  imply  something  more  than 
mere  "dislike."  But  whatever  it  was,  it  gave  way  before 
the  overpowering  will  of  the  king.  The  articles  were 
adopted,  and  severe  punishment  was  denounced  against  all 
who  should  not  comply  v/ith  them  ;  and  Cranmer's  "opin- 
ions," says  Short,  "  were  not  now  diametrically  contrary  to 
the  first  article,"  that  is  Transubstantiation;  they  had  been, 
but  were  not  now.  The  king  was  determined  to  have  Tran- 
substantiation as  an  article  in  the  creed  of  his  newly -founded 
Church;  so  good,  easy  Cranmer  "complied"  and  preserved 
the  king's  favor,  and  his  own  head.  He  had  no  idea  of 
being  burnt  at  the  stake  for  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantia- 
tion, so  he  "complied."  As  to  the  article  requiring  celi- 
bacy, however  much  he  "disliked"  it,  he  thought  best  to 
conform  to  it,  and  accordingly  he  packed  his  wife  back  to 
Germany  :  for,  although  he  was  somewhat  uxorious,  having 
had  two  wives  at  one  time,  yet  after  all  he  preferred  his 
Bi.shopric  to  any  such  creature  comforts.  Others  might 
"  conscientiously  resign  their  sees"  about  such  trifling  mat- 
ters as  the  six  articles  involved,  but  Thomas  Cranmer  had 


76  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

more  sense  than  to  do  such  a  silly  thing  !  He  had  no  idea 
of  sacrificing  himself;  not  he.  He  could  sacrifice  ,his  wife 
and  even  his  conscience,  but  not  the  king's  favor  and  his 
ecclesiastical  dignities.  It  was  thus  that  he  managed  to 
keep  in  the  ascendancy  throughout  the  reign  of  that  mon- 
arch, by  a  niean,  base,  and  cowardly  subserviency  to  the 
royal  will,  in  spirituals  as  in  temporals. 

Cranmer,  like  Latimer  and  Ridley,  was  a  cruel  and  re- 
morseless persecutor.  He  aided  and  abetted  the  bloody  ty- 
rant, Henry,  not  only  in  his  adulteries  and  wife-murders, 
but  also  in  his  numerous  executions  at  the  stake  of  both 
Catholics  and  Protestants.  In  all  these  misdeeds,  Crannier 
was  the  principal  agent,  and  performed  a  prominent  part. 
He  was  the  grand  inquisitor  before  whom  all  heretics  were 
summoned  and  tried,  that  is,  all  who  did  not  conform  to  the 
half  Catholic  and  half  Protestant  creed  of  that  period,  and 
they  who  did  not  retract  were  burnt  at  the  stake  without 
mercy.  Thus  perished  in  the  fires  of  Smithfield,  Lambert,- 
Forest,  and  others  whom  Cranmer  had  condemned,  during 
the  reign  of  Henry.  Thus  this  man,  as  chief  inquisitor  of 
the  king,  tried  and  condemned  to  be  burnt  at  the  stake  such 
as  denied  these  A'ery  six  articles  which  he  himself  had  oppos- 
ed Avith  all  "his  eloquence  and  force" — condemned  to  be 
burnt  such  as  denied  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  although  he 
himself  was  a  married  man,  contrary  to  the  canons!  What 
think  you  of  this "?  Was  not  his  effrontery  equal  to  his 
cruelty  and  intolerance  ? 

After  the  death  of  Henry,  Cranmer  was  as  obsequious  to 
the  young  Edward,  or  rather  to  his  protector,  Somerset,  as 
he  had  been  to  the  deceased  tyrant.  But  Somerset  was  not 
so  much  of  a  theologian  as  Henry,  and  was  quite  willing  to 
leave  the  spiritual  affairs  of  the  nation  in  the  hands  of  the 
Archbishop,  so  long  as  he  was  allowed  to  enrich  and  aggran- 
dize himself  with  its  temporalities.  However,  Cranmer  still 
recognized  the  principle  established  under  the  late  reign,  that  a 
Bishop's  jurisdiction  is  derived  from  the  king,  and  dependent 
upon  his  pleasure ;  and  hence  upon  the  accession  of  Edward 
he  applied  for  a  new  commission  to  execute  his  office,  the  old 
one  having  expired  with  the  late  king  !  It  must  be  admit- 
ted that  this  conduct  was  only  consistent  in  a  Church  which 
derived  its  very  being  from  the  civil  power,  but  it  certainly 
does  violence  to  all  correct  notions  of  the  Divine  authority 
and  independence  of  the  episcopate.      Being  now  qualified,. 


L  K  T  T  K  R     III, 


by  the  royal  connnission,  to  perform  the  office  of  a  Bishop 
■"(luring  the  king's  pleasure,"  Craumer  sot  about  the  work 
of  arranging  Church  matters  to  suit  his  own  ideas.  Among 
other  measures  taken,  was  the  formation  of  a  liturgy,  new 
articles  of  belief,  and  a  system  of  ecclesiastical  law.  Upou 
the  last  topic  a  work  was  prepared  by  Cranmer,  entitled 
lufonntitio  Legnm  Ecdcsiadicorum .  In  this  work  the  Arch- 
bishop put  forth  a  body  of  laws  for  the  government  of  the 
new  Church,  and  although  it  never  received  the  royal  sanc- 
tion, yet  it  is  important  as  an  evidence  of  the  opinions  held 
at  that  time.  1'he  first  chapter  in  this  compilation  asserts 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  denounces  the  penalty  of 
death,  with  confi.scation  of  goods,  against  such  as  should 
deny  the  Catho.ic  faith.  It  further  provided  that  persons 
accused  of  heresy,  were  to  be  tried  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts, 
and  if  found  guilty  and  impenitent,  they  were  to  be  deliv- 
ered over  to  the  secular  arm  for  puni.shraent.  Such  was  the 
code  of  laws  which  Cranmer  proposed  for  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  people.  From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  he  was 
very  far  from  holding  the  principles  of  religious  toleration, 
as  now  understood,  lie  held  nothing  of  the  kind.  He  al- 
ii i  wed  no  one  to  depart  from  his  own  standard  of  orthodoxy, 
variable  as  it  was.  He  was  intolerant,  he  was  a  remorseless 
]);?rsecutor.  He  was  persecutor,  too,  from  conviction,  from 
])rinciple.  He  deliberately  composed  a  code  denouncing 
death  to  the  heretic*  It  is  sometimes  alleged  in  defence 
of  Protestant  persecution,  that  it  was  carried  on  against  their 
own  principles.  This  plea  cannot  be  set  up  for  Cranmer. 
He  persecuted  because  he  believed  it  to  be  a  right,  and  a 
ruty.  He  was  strictly  and  truly  a  persecutor  from  principle, 
if  ever  man  was  such.  That  Craumer  did  not  hesitate  to 
jmt  his  intolerant  principles  in  practice  under  the  reign  of 
flenry  VIII.,  I  have  already  shown  you.  That  he  contin- 
ued to  do  so  under  Edward,  his  sanguinary  acts  too  well 
declare.  To  mention  these  various  acts  of  cruelty,  would 
occupy  too  much  space  ;  I  will  relate  one  instance,  however, 
from  wliich  the  blooil-thirsty  character  of  Cranmer  is  better 
<lpi!ii>nstr:ited  than  volumes  of  words  could  do.  As  I  have 
•iV  ■•'.  y  m-^ntioned  Cranmer,  as  well  as  Latimer  and  Ridley, 
w's  ,i' member  of  the  commission  appointed  to  try  persons 

he  rt:  dcr  \vi  1  find  a  biief  account  of  this  work  in  Short' t  Hit- 

'.' f  Rr  .   jJ  435  iind  note. 


78  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

charged  with  opinions  contrary  to  the  standard  which  he  and 
his  comrades  had  recently  set  up.  Among  other  persons 
brought  before  this  court  of  inquisition,  was  a  half-witted 
female  called  Joan  Becher,  and  sometimes  Joan  of  Kent. 
This  person  had  been  very  zealous  in  bringing  over  privately, 
from  Germany,  Lutheran  books,  for  the  use  of  the  ladies  of  the 
court  in  Henry's  reign,  but  in  carrying  out  the  principle  of 
private  judgment  set  up  by  the  new  religionists,  she  proceed- 
ed farther  than  some  others  and  denied  that  Christ  was  truly 
incarnate  of  the  Virgin.  For  this  error  she  was  arraigned 
before  the  Commission,  that  is  the  Inquisition,  for  such  it 
was,  in  the  presence  of  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  others  of  the 
same  stamp.  The  unhappy  woman  persisted  in  her  error, 
and  Cranmer  immediately  pronounced  upon  her  sentence  of 
excommunication,  and  delivered  her  over  to  the  secular  pow- 
er to  be  burnt.  But  the  young  king,  more  merciful  than 
the  Archbishop,  was  unwilling  to  sign  the  warrant  for  her 
execution,  his  tender  heart  shuddering  at  the  thought  of  the 
bloody  deed.  But  the  remorseless  Cranmer,  accustomed  to 
such  barbarous  acts,  was  resolved  on  burning  the  poor  wo- 
man. He  set  to  work  to  overcome  the  scruples  of  the  young 
monarch,  entering  upon  a  regular  argument  to  convince  him 
that  it  was  right  and  just  to  extirpate  such  heretics.  He 
argued  from  the  law  of  Moses  which  required  blasphemers 
to  be  stoned  to  death,  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  king  to 
punish  impieties  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Apostle's  Greed. 
And  when  he  persisted  in  his  importunities  to  get  the  war- 
rant signed,  the  young  Edward  exclaimed — "What,  my 
lord,  will  you  have  me  send  her  quick  to  the  devil  in  her 
error  !"  But  still  the  bloody  Cranmer  urged  him  to  sign 
the  warrant.  The  young  king,  overcome  at  length,  set  his 
hand  to  the  document,  and  as  he  traced  the  fatal  line,  he 
said  to  the  Archbishop,  with  tears  in  his  eyes:  "  If  I  do 
wrong,  since  it  was  in  submission  to  your  authority,  you 
must  answer  for  it  to  God."  Aye,  and  he  did  answer  for  it 
when  the  flames  of  the  stake  wrapped  his  own  body  in  sheets 
ef  consuming  fire.  When  the  poor  won)an  saw  that  she  was 
condemned,  she  boldly  tannted  the  fickle  Cranmer  with 
changes  and  murders — "  It  is  a  goodly  matter  to  consider," 
said  she,  "your  ignorance.  It  Avas  not  long  affo  since  you 
burned  Ann  Ascue  for  a  piece  of  bread,  (for  calling  the  sac- 
rament only  bread)  and  yet  came  soon  after  to  believe  and 
profess  the  same  doctrine  for  which  you  burned  her;  and 


I-  K  X  T  E  K     1  1  I  .  79 

now  forsooth,  you  will  needs  burn  nie  for  a  piece  of  flesh, 
(that  is,  for  denying  the  flesh  of  Christ)  and  in  the  end  you 
will  come  to  believe  this  also,  when  you  have  read  the  Scrip- 
tures and  understand  tlieni."  When  led  out  to  be  bui*ned 
at  the  stake  in  Sniithfield,  she  exhibited  the  same  determi- 
nation by  her  answer  to  one  of  Cranmer's  agents  who  endea- 
vored to  convert  her,  that  he  "lied  like  a  rogue,"'  and  bade 
him  "go  read  the  Scriptures'' — thus  using  against  the  new 
religionists  the  very  arguments  which  they  had  used  against 
the  "old  Church  ! 

What  a  revolting  picture  does  Cranmer  here  present — 
burning  at  the  stake,  in  spite  of  the  tears  and  scruples  of  the 
young  king,  a  poor  deluded  woman,  who,  after  all,  only 
acted  on  the  principle  of  private  judgment,  which  he  him- 
self had  acted  on  against  the  whole  Church  !  Here  was  one 
of  the  bloody  deeds  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  the  father  of  Anglicanism,  under  his  master, 
Henry  VHI.  Nor  is  it  a  solitary  instance — it  is  one  of 
many,  and  given  as  a  specimen  of  the  intolerance  and  truc- 
ulent character  of  him  who  is  often  extolled  as  the  leader  in 
that  "little  band  of  martyrs"  who  suffered  in  Sniithfield 
for  the  Protestant  cause  I  How  few  Episcopalians  of  the 
present  day  know  anything  of  such  deeds  of  cruelty,  perpe- 
trated by  the  founders  of  their  Church,  in  order  to  carry  out 
their  selfish  and  rebellious  projects.  Nearly  all  their  histo- 
ries of  that  period  are  silent  about  such  deeds ;  or,  if  they 
mention  them  at  all,  it  is  in  such  ambiguous  terms  as  pre- 
vent the  reader  from  seeing  the  matter  in  its  true  light. 
That  these  deeds  were  really  perpetrated,  cannot  admit  of 
the  slightest  doubt,  since  they  can  be  proved  by  Pi-utestant 
authorities,  such  as  Burnet,  Fox  and  Strype,  who  were  re- 
luctantly compelled  to  give  some  account  of  such  things 
when  writing  of  tho.se  times.  In  regard  to  the  jiarliiular 
fact  just  related,  and  Cranmer's  agency  therein,  I  shall  simply 
quote  the  admission  of  IJishop  Sliort.  who,  as  I  have  bettn'O 
said,  has  evinced  more  candor  than  any  other  recent  author 
on  his  side  that  I  am  actjuainted  with,  although  not  always 
free  from  prejudice  and  partialit}.  Short,  in  speaking  of  the 
execution  of  Joan  Boi.'her.  says:  "  There  was  considerable 
difficulty  in  persuading  Edward  to  consent  to  this  .--cvcrity. 
and  it  was  only  on  the  strong  remonstrances  of  Crannn^r  that 
lie  was  induced  to  sign  the  warrant.  The  act  was  piM-formed 
by  hint  with  tears  in  his  eves,  and  with  an  appeal  to  the 
8 


80  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Archbishop,  that  at  the  day  of  judgment  he  must  answer  for 
having  procured  his  signature.  This  proceeding  gave  great 
and  just  ofi'ence  to  the  world,  and  was  used  as  an  argument 
to  justify  the  necessity  of  capital  punishments  in  matters  of 
faith,  by  the  persecutors  of  the  next  reign,  who,  in  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  father  (Cranmer)  of  our  Reformation,  have 
often  traced  the  retribution  of  Divine  justice  on  one  who,  in 
these  instances,  as  well  as  those  during  the  life  of  Henry, 
cannot  be  excused  even  by  his  friends."  (.History  of  Ref., 
§315.)  Thus  you  have  this  damning  fact  given  in  the 
words  of  your  own  historian.  And  what  a  fact!  Here  is 
your  founder,  "  tlie  fother  of  our  Eeformation,"  actually 
forcing  the  young  monarch,  against  his  tears  and  remon- 
strances, to  burn  at  the  stake  a  deluded  woman,  solely  on 
account  of  her  doctrinal  errors.  This  horrid  deed  was  done 
about  twenty  years  after  his  separation  from  the  Catholic 
Church.  This,  with  other  similar  deeds  taken  in  connection 
with  the  code  of  laws  which  he  composed,  deliberately  de- 
nouncing; death  against  heretics,  shows  that  he  was  a  ruthless, 
bloody  persecutor,  and  that  from  conviction  and  principle. 
If  his  Bible  studies  had  opened  his  eyes  to  see  the  errors  and 
corruptions  of  Popery,  as  alleged  by  some,  why  did  not 
these  studies  also  open  his  eyes  to  the  claims  of  justice  and 
mercy  ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  the  Bible  had  nothing  to  do 
with  his  religion,  except  as  he  could  pervert  it  to  his  own 
wicked  and  selfish  purposes  ?  I  think  there  are  but  few  Epis- 
copalians of  the  present  day  who,  when  made  acquainted  witlz 
Cranmer's  sanguinary  deeds,  will  not  feel  ashamed  to  ac- 
knowledge him  as  the  author  of  their  Prayer-Book,  and  the 
founder  of  their  Church.  They  have  been  led  by  the  eulo- 
gies of  interested  partizans  to  regard  Cranmer  as  a  noble, 
self-sacrificing  Reformer,  as  a  saint  and  martyr  !  But  his 
deeds  of  iniquity  and  barbarity  proclaim  him  to  have  been 
altogether  a  different  character.  No  wonder  that  Mr.  Fronde, 
an  English  Protestant,  as  he  became  acquainted  with  the 
true  character  of  such  men,  exclaimed:  "Truly  I  hate  the 
Reformers  and  the  Reformation  more  and  more."  Surely  no 
impartial  person  can  contemplate  such  deeds  without  being 
convinced  that  Cranmer  and  his  associates  were  bad  men, 
banded  together  in  a  bad  cause. 

But  let  us  pass  on  to  another  event  in  which  Cranmer 
took  a  prominent  part,  and  which  serves  to  show  that  he  was 
an  unprincipled  man.     The  brief  life  of  the  young  Edward 


LETTER     II.  81 

was  drawing  to  a  close,  and  as  Mary,  a  strict  Catholic,  was 
the  Icffitiraate  heir  to  the  crown,  the  new  religionists  who 
had  plundered  the  churches  and  perpetrated  other  deeds  of 
wickedness,  were  anxious  to  retain  the  royal  power  on  their 
own  side,  by  setting  aside  Mary  for  some  Protestant.  How- 
ever unjust  was  this  scheme,  it  was  easy  to  persuade  a  feeble 
youth,  upon  a  sick  ])ed,  that  it  was  right  and  necessary.  But 
wlien  the  judges,  as  I  have  already  mentioned,  were  called 
in  to  draw  up  the  legal  documents  for  altering  the  succession 
in  favor  of  Lady  Jane  Grey,  they  persisted  in  refusing  to  do 
so,  until  they  were  assured  before-hand  of  a  pardon  for  the 
part  they  took  in  the  matter.  And  wdien  Cranmer  was  re- 
quested to  sign  the  document,  as  one  of  the  privy  counsel- 
lors, he  replied :  "I  cannot  .set  my  hand  to  this  instrument 
without  committing  perjury — for  I  have  already  sworn  to 
the  succession  of  the  Lady  Mary,  according  to  his  late  ma- 
jesty's testament."  To  subscribe  the  document  then  by  his 
own  confession,  was  to  commit  perjury  and  treason.  And 
yet,  incredible  as  it  would  be  in  any  other  man,  Cranmer  af- 
terwards put  his  signature  to  the  document  I  And  how  was 
he  brought  to  do  such  a  deed  ?  Just  as  he  had  been  induced 
to  perpetrate  other  inii^uities  under  Henry — it  was  to  comply 
with  the  royal  will.  That  was  enough  for  Cranmer.  What 
the  king  desired,  he  was  ever  ready  to  perform,  no  matter  how 
atrocious  might  be  the  act.  His  conscience,  if  we  can  sup- 
pose such  a  man  to  have  had  a  conscience  at  all,  was  as  pliant 
as  a  young  willow ;  it  readily  bent  in  any  direction  that  the 
nod  of  the  king  should  indicate.  His  subserviency  in  this 
matter  is  set  forth  by  a  Protestant  historian,  in  these  words: 
"  The  king  did  nse  so  many  reasons  to  him,  in  behalf  of  re- 
ligion, and  plyed  him  with  such  strong  persuasions  in  pursu- 
ance of  them,  that  at  the  last  he  suffered  himself  to  be  over- 
come by  his  importunities,  and  so  subscribed  it  with  the  rest." 
( Ilei/Jiu,  Rcf.  p.  153.)  Here  the  foct  is  admitted  with  a  lame 
and  ridiculous  apology.  Cranmer,  the  Archbishop,  the  Re- 
former, the  Hierophant  of  the  new  religion,  is  persuaded  by  a 
dying  youth  to  commit  an  act  of  treason  and  perjury  !  Can  any 
one  after  this  avoid  the  conviction  that  Cranmer  could  have 
been  induced  to  do  an}-  iniquity  under  the  sun  ?  Thus  this 
man  not  only  put  to  death  such  as  did  not  conform  to  his 
standard,  but  also  sought  to  set  aside  the  royal  succes.sion, 
against  the  law  and  against  his  own  oath,  upon  the  principle 
that  the  end  justifies  the  means  :  for  the  interests  of  the  new 


82  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

religion  required  it !  Who  with  such  deeds  before  him  wilf 
not  be  forced  to  exckiiu  with  Mr.  Froude,  "  Truly  I  hate 
the  Reformers  and  tlie  Reformation  more  and  more." 

But  let  us  hasten  on  to  the  closing  period  of  this  wicked 
man,  for  who  can  call  him  anything  else,  in  view  of  his 
dreadful  crimes  against  God  and  man.  We  shall  find  that 
his  end  was  a  fit  termination  for  a  life  of  iniquity.  As  he 
commenced  his  public  career  with  deception  and  hypocrisy, 
lie  finished  it  with  acts  of  a  similar  character.  As  soon  as 
Mary  was  established  on  the  throne,  Cranmer  was  arrested 
for  his  rebellion  and  treason,  and  sent  to  prison,  where  he 
was  allowed  a  period  of  about  two  j^ears  for  reflection  and 
repentance.  At  length  judgment  was  pronounced  upon  his 
case,  and  he  was  excommunicated  for  heresy.  The  imhappy 
man,  seeing  that  his  case  was  becoming  desperate,  and  that 
the  just  vengeance  of  heaven  was  about  to  overtake  him  for 
his  past  iniquities,  professed  himself  ready  to  renounce  his 
new  opinions,  and  conform  to  the  old  religion,  which  was 
once  more  the  faith  of  those  in  power.  Yes,  this  man  who 
had  set  himself  up  as  a  Reformer,  and  who  is  still  venerated 
as  such  by  many,  actually  endeavored  to  escape  the  death 
which  he  had  so  richly  deserved,  by  renouncing  the  doctrines 
of  the  new  religion,  and  embracing  those  which  he  had  all 
along  repudiated  as  false  and  corrupt !  Thinking  to  escape 
death  by  reluming  to  the  Catholic  faith,  he  actually  made 
seven  distinct  recantations  in  writing,  by  which  he  professed 
to  abjure  his  errors,  and  receive  all  the  Catholic  doctrines 
against  which  he  had  hitherto  protested.  In  his  first  paper 
he  was  disposed  to  be  ambiguous,  and  simply  professed  to 
submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope  "so  far  as  God's  laws,, 
and  the  laws  and  customs  of  this  realm  will  perm.it."  Here 
was  the  same  Thomas  Cranmer  practising  duplicity  just  as 
he  did  when  he  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Pontiff,  in 
order  to  be  consecrated  Arclibishsp  of  Canterbury  I  This 
paper  was  of  course,  rejected  as  a  mere  subterfuge.  He 
then  signed  another  paper,  in  which  he  professed  to  submit 
without  reservation  or  condition  to  "  the  Catholic  Ciiureh  of 
Christ  and  unto  the  Pope,  supreme  head  of  the  same  Church." 
This  was  well  enough  as  far  as  it  went,  and  might  have  an- 
swered in  any  other  case.  But  the  Catholic  authorities  knew 
what  sort  of  a  man  they  had  to  deal  with,  and  placed  little 
faith  in  his  asseverations.  Cranmer's  object  was  to  obtain  a 
pardon,  but  his  crimes  had  been  too  great.     The  queen,  es- 


LETTERIII.  '  83 

pecially,  could  not  forget  his  criminal  agency  in  divorcing 
her  unfortiniate  mother,  nor  hisact  of  treason  in  endeavoring 
to  sot  up  Lady  Jane  Grey.  But  still  Cranmer  entertained  a 
hope  that  by  means  of  thorough  and  complete  expurgations 
he  might  escape  his  impending  doom.  Ho  accordingly  signed 
other  and  more  explicit  papers  for  that  pui'pose.  In  the 
fifth  document  of  the  sort,  he  becomes  quite  explicit  in  his 
abjuration  of  the  errors  of  his  past  life  and  in  accepting  all 
the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church.  He  expressly  re- 
nounces the  "errors  of  Luther  and  Zuinglius,"  and  asserts 
his  belief  in  Transubstantiation,  Purgatory,  and  whatever  the 
"  Church  of  Rome  holdcth  and  teacheth."  In  this  paper  he 
also  says,  "and  all  such  as  have  been  deceived  cither  by 
mine  example  or  doctrine,  I  require  them  by  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  that  they  will  return  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church, 
that  we  may  be  all  of  one  mind  without  schism  or  division." 
He  thus  abjured  his  followers  to  abandon  the  doctrines  and 
practices  in  which  he  had  led  them.  Would  to  God  that  his 
successors  and  followers  of  the  present  day  would  listen  to 
these  words  of  warning.  I  would  like  to  copy  this  document 
entire,  but  it  is  too  lengthy.  I  must,  however,  lay  before 
you  the  concluding  sentence,  in  which  Crannicr  calls  God  to 
witness  his  sincerity  in  making  this  solemn  abjuration  :  "And 
God  is  my  witness,  that  I  have  not  done  this  lor  favor,  or  fear 
of  any  person,  but  willingly  and  of  my  own  mii^d,  as  well  ta 
the  discharge  of  mine  own  conscience  as  to  the  instruction  of 
othgrs."  This  passage  is  important,  because  it  refutes  the 
plea  sometimes  set  up  by  the  apologists  of  Cranmer,  that  his 
recantation  was  extorted  fi'om  him  by  others  under  the  pro- 
mise of  pardon  ;  although,  even  had  that  been  the  case,  it 
would  imply  a  weakness  and  vacillation  very  ill  befitting  the 
character  of  a  founder  of  a  church,  or  of  a  saint  or  martyr. 
This  clear  and  full  recantation  was  accompanied  by  a  letter 
to  Cardinal  Pole,  praying  that  his  execution  might  be  delay- 
ed a  few  days,  in  order  that  he  niight  better  prepare  for  his 
end,  and  give  the  world  a  proof  of  his  repentance  and  refor- 
mation. The  queen  very  cheerfully  granted  his  request,  and 
in  the  meantime,  Cranmer  produced  a  sixth  paper,  in  which  he 
declares  his  many  sins  against  heaven,  against  the  State,  and 
against  the  Catholic  Church  ;  acknowledging,  that  like  Paul, 
he  had  persecuted  the  Church,  and  expresses  the  wish,  like 
Paul,  to  make  amends  for  his  evil  deeds,  or  like  the  penitent 
thief  on  the  cross,  obtain  forgiveness  in  his  lust  moments  ; 
8* 


84  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

he  confesses  himself  the  greatest  sinner,  that  he  had  wronged 
Henry,  and  Catherine  his  wife,  by  divorcing  them  and  thus 
bringing  on  all  the  evils  that  afflicted  the  Church  and  the 
realm,  including  the  death  of  so  many  eminent  and  innocent 
men,  and  causing  schism,  heresies  and  destruction  of  souls ; 
he  laments  that  he  had  been  the  great  leader  and  teacher  of 
heresy,  and  above  all,  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  blasphe- 
mies against  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  altar  :  he  finally  con- 
cludes by  begging  in  the  humblest  and  most  penitent  terms, 
pardon  of  the  Pope,  of  his  Sovereign,  and  of  Almighty  God. 
This  document  is  more  lengthy  than  the  previous  one,  and 
bear  his  signature  under  date  of  March  18,  1555. 

The  third  day  after  this  date,  that  is  the  21st  of  March, 
was  the  day  appointed  for  his  execution.  On  the  morning 
of  the  fatal  day  Garcia,  his  spiritual  adviser,  visited  him  in 
prison  to  prepare  him  for  his  dreadful  doom.  Having  no 
suspicion  of  his  sincerity,  he  showed  him  a  paper  which  he 
advised  him  to  copy  and  read  to  the  people  at  the  stake,  as  a 
public  acknowledgment  of  his  repentance.  With  this  re- 
quest he  readily  complied,  transcribed  the  document  and 
signed  it,  giving  one  copy  to  Garcia,  and  retaining  the  other 
to  read  just  before  his  execution,  as  was  supposed.  This 
document  constituted  his  seventh  recantation,  and  was  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  the  one  signed  three  days  before,  as  to 
points  of  faijh. 

That  Cranmer  actually  made  the  several  recantations  which 
I  have  mentioned,  there  cannot  be  a  particle  of  doubt.  They 
may  be  found  entire  in  the  old  memoirs  of  those  times  com- 
posed by  Strype,  Fox,  and  other  Church  of  England  authors,, 
although  most  of  the  modern  apologists  of  the  English  eccle- 
siastical revolution  deem  it  most  prudent  to  say  but  little 
upon  the  subject.*  Even  our  oft  quoted  authority.  Bishop 
Short,  came  very  near  ignoring  the  whole  subject.  He 
merely  speaks  of  the  fall  of  which  Cranmer  was  ' '  guilty  in 
signing  the  recantation,"  reserving  for  a  foot-note,  a  more 
distinct  allusjon  to  the  matter.  As  this  note  is  but  brief, 
and  furnishes  all  the  evidence  we  need  to  establish  the  fiict 
of  the  several  recantations,  I  shall  copy  it  here  entire.  It 
reads  thus:   "The  six  confessions  or  recantations  made  l)y 

*  See  these  recantations  in  S'n/pe's  Ecclesiastical  Memoirs,  reign  of 
Queen  Mary,  chap.  30.  Si.\  of  them  are  given  in  full  by  this  Protest- 
ant author. 


LETTER     III.  8& 

Cranmer  are  curious  in  pointing  out  the  imperceptible  step 
by  which  he  was  led  on  from  one  point  to  another,  till  he 
gave  up  and  renounced  almost  all  that  he  had  ever  taught, 
and  assented  directly  to  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Five  of  these  are  in  Sf)-i/j)(''s  Ecc.  3fcnt.,  v.  302,  &c.,  the 
other  in  Fox,  iii.,  559."  '  {Short's  Ilht.  of  Rcf.,  §  87U.) 

This  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose.  It  proves  the  fact  that 
Cranmer  made  six  di.stinct  recantations  of  his  Protestant 
errors,  and  six  distinct  professions  of  the  Catholic  and  Kon)an 
faith  during  his  last  days,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt 
or  cavil.  As  to  the  seventh  recantation,  althougli  unrjues- 
tionahly  a  fact,  it  is  unnecessary  to  insist  upon  it,  especially 
as  it  was  only  substantially  the  same  as  the  sixtli.  All  admit 
he  made  six — and  that  was  just  six  too  many  for  his  owu 
credit  as  a  "reformer  and  martyr,"  and  just  six  too  many 
for  his  followers  and  apologists  to  have  to  excuse  and  defend. 

We  find  then,  that  Cannier,  as  he  approached  his  end,  ab- 
jured his  Protestant  doctrines  and  professed  the  Catholic  faith,, 
again  and  again,  in  the  most  explicit  and  solemn  manner, 
professing  to  do  so  only  from  conscientious  motives,  and  call- 
ing God  to  witness  his  sincerity  in  so  doing.  It  is  important 
to  observe  too,  that  there  were  not  only  so  many  distinct  acts 
of  recantation,  but  that  these  several  acts  were  performed  at 
different  times,  covering  a  period  of  several  months.  Most 
Episcopalians  have,  perhaps,  a  vague  idea  that  Cranmer 
made  some  sort  of  a  recantation  in  view  of  death,  and  seem 
to  think  that  it  was  but  one  act,  and  performed  too,  in  a  mo- 
ment of  impulse,  when  terrified  at  the  thought  of  the  fiery 
furnace.  But  it  is  apparent  that  such  a  notion  falls  far  short 
of  the  reality.  These  acts  were  several  and  distinct — six  or 
seven  in  number — were  executed  in  writing  over  his  own  sig- 
nature ;  performed  deliberately  at  different  times,  separated 
by  weeks  and  months,  and  couched  in  language  the  most  ex- 
plicit, positive  and  solemn.*  Who  can  fail  to  recognize  the 
hand  of  Providence  in  this  affair  V  Cranmer  was  a  principal 
agent  in  the  English  schism,  and  the  author  of  the  liturgy 

*  The  first  two  recantations  are  withont  date,  the  third  appears 
to  have  Vieen  signed  Pel).  14;  the  sixtli  is  dated  Ahuch  18.  There 
was,  consequently,  an  interval  of  five  weeks  between  the  third  and 
sixth  recantations.  So  little  room  is  there  for  the  oi)iiiion  thai  his  re- 
cantation was  the  result  of  a  monientarij  weakness  in  view  of  the  stxike  T 
It  is  thus  evident,  that  for  the  last  five  weeks  of  his  life  at  least,  he 
was  either  a  sincere  Catholic  or  a  base  dissembler  and  hypociite. 


86  LETTERS     TO     AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 

and  doctrinal  standards  of  Anglicanism  and  Episcopalianism  ; 
and,  as  if  God  would  deter  others  from  following  his  error, 
his  recantations  were  so  many  and  so  distinct,  and  so  well, 
authenticated,  that  no  one  in  all  future  time  might  venture 
even  to  question  them — and  thus  covering  with  shame  both 
the  schism  and  its  author,  together  with  all  who  knowingly 
persist  in  treading  in  his  steps. 

But  let  us  follow  Cranmer  to  the  end.  I  have  already 
stated,  that  on  the  morning  of  his  execution  he  signed  a  pa- 
per which  he  was  to  read,  retracting  his  errors,  and  profess- 
ing the  Catholic  faitli.  On  his  way  to  the  stake,  the  proces- 
sion stopped  at  the  Church  in  which  the  last  soleum  ceremon- 
ies were  to  be  performed.  As  usual  on  such  occasions,  a 
sermon  was  preached  :  after  which,  Cranmer  rose  to  read  as 
■was  expected,  the  paper  which  had  been  prepared  for  the 
purpose.  But,  to  the  utter  astonishment  of  the  whole  assem- 
bly, he  read  a  very  different  paper,  in  which  he  actually  re- 
tracted his  previous  recantations — re-asserted  his  Protestant 
errors,  denounced  the  Pope  as  Christ's  enemy  and  Anti- 
Christ,  and  with  this  avowal  he  was  forthwith  sent  to  the 
stake  ! 

Now  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  six  or  seven  recantations 
of  Cranmer,  professing  re]3entance  for  his  errors,  his  belief 
in  the  Catholic  faith,  and  submission  to  the  Pope  as  the 
Vicar  of  Christ.  We  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  these 
solemn  professions  were  all  a  sham  !  These  six  or  seven 
acts  were  only  so  many  acts  of  deception  and  hypocrisy  ! 
This  is  not  an  uncharitable  judgment ;  it  is  the  just  and  ne- 
cessary conclusion  to  which  we  are  forced  by  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  A  man  nniy  honestly  change  his  mind 
on  the  controverted  points  in  religion,  again  and  again.  By 
neglecting  to  correspond  with  the  grace  of  God,  he  may  in- 
volve himself  in  darkness  and  doubt,  and  mistaking  the  dis- 
torted views  thus  awakened  for  convictions,  fall  again  into 
errors  which  he  had  once  renounced.  From  this  unhappy 
relapse  he  may  again  arise,  when  by  the  mercy  of  (iod  his 
eyes  are  opened  and  the  source  of  his  error  laid  b;  i-e  to  his 
understanding,  and  once  more  act  up  to  the  grace  ,;'ivcn,  and 
become  a  faitliful  and  honest  professor  and  advocate  of  the 
truth.  All  this  is  freely  admitted.  But  can  such  an  argu- 
ment be  truly  employed  in  defence  of  Cranmer.  In  the  first 
phice,  if  it  could  be,  it  would  only  .serve  to  shield  liini  from 
the  charge  of  insincerity  and  hypocrisy.  It  would  still  be 
evident  that,    whatever  extenuation   of   this   sort  might  be 


L  E  T  T  K  U     1 1 1  .  87" 

made,  Craniiior  was  not  such  a  one  as  wo  have  a  right  to 
expect  in  a  true  reformer  and  martyr,  such  as  God  raises  up 
when  the  times  require  it.  But  truth  will  not  allow  us  to 
use  such  an  ar<rumcnt  in  Cranmer's  defence,  or  rather  Cran- 
mer  himself  will  not  allow  us  to  use  it.  In  his  last  avowal 
he  expressly  stated  that  he  acted  the  part  of  a  "  disscmhler'* 
in  his  several  rec;intations.  lie  said  :  "  Which  now  I  here 
renounce  and  refuse  as  tliimj^i  irrittcn  nifh  mi/  lunid  contrary 
to  the  truth  vliicli  I tliovr/ht  in  viij  heart :  and  written  for  fear 
of  death,  and  to  save  my  life  if  it  might  be."*  He  here 
expressly  asserts  that  these  recantations  were  contrary  to  his 
real  belief,  and  that  he  made  them  solely  to  escape  death, 
although  in  one  of  them  he  declared  that  he  made  it  from 
no  such  fear  or  motive!  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  there 
was  no  cluinge  of  mind  about  it.  He  professed  nothing  of 
the  sort  in  his  own  explanation,  and  no  such  plea  can  be  set 
up  by  others,  when  he  himself  has  utterly  excluded  it.  By 
his  own  confession  he  was  guilty  of  deliberate  and  wicked 
hypocrisy,  and  that  again  and  again,  and  all  the  time  asseve- 
rating his  sincerity,  and  calling  God  to  witness  the  truth  of 
his  declarations!  In  view  of  such  facts,  it  is  impossible  to 
deny  that  Thomas  Cranmer  was  the  most  arrant  hypocrite 
that  ever  disgraced  the  Christian  name.  They  who  believe 
in  the  religion  he  did  so  much  to  establish,  may  find  some 
consolation  in  his  final  avowal  of  Protestantism  and  alleged 
penitence  for  his  fall ;  but  surely  his  hypocritical  recantation 
justly  deprives  him  of  all  title  to  their  respect  and  venera- 
tion, and  covers  with  disgrace  the  cause  with  which  his  name 
is  so  intimately  identified.  That  it  is  an  egregious  misnomer 
to  call  him  a  ■'  martjr,"  must  be  apparent  to  all  who  impar- 
tially consider  the  circumstances  of  his  death.  A  martyr  is 
one  who  lays  dovrn  his  life  rather  than  renounce  his  faith. 
But  this  did  not  Cranmer.  The  converse  of  this  was  true 
with  him.  He  renounced  his  faith,  if  we  may  call  it  such, 
rather  than  lay  down  his  life.  This  he  confessed  himself. 
He  renounced  his  Protestantism  to  save  his  life.  He  hoped 
for  pardon  up  to  the  moment  when  he  was  led  forth  to  his 
execution,  and  up  to  that  mon.ent  he  continued  his  recanta- 
tions.    But  when   he  found  that  his  recantations  failed  to- 


*  See  this  last  confession  as  set  forth  in  S'ri/pe's  Feci.  Mem.,  vol. 
iv.,  and  along  side  of  it.  the  recanlation  he  last  signed  in  prison,  ou 
the  day  of  his  execution — and  which  he  promised  to  read  to  the  people. 


iiO  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

procure  a  pardon,  he  confessed  his  hypocrisy  and  avowed 
himself  a  Protestant.  He  merely  died  a  Protestant  when  he 
found  that  he  could  not  escape  death,  by  professing  himself 
a  Catholic.  Such  a  man  is  unworthy  of  the  honored  name 
of  martyr.  He  was  a  dissembler  and  a  hypocrite,  who  was 
willing  to  profess  what  he  did  not  believe,  in  order  to  pro- 
tract his  miserable  life.  They  who  are  honored  as  martyrs 
in  the  Catholic  Church  were  men  of  a  very  different  stamp- 
men  who  steadfastly  adhered  to  the  faith  which  they  had 
taught,  and  courageously  laid  down  their  lives  rather  than 
deny  or  compromise  that  faith  in  the  slightest  degree.  Be- 
sides, Cranmer  was  not  executed  solely  for  his  Protestantism, 
but  for  rebellion  and  treason,  of  which  he  was  undeniably 
guilty.  To  call  a  rebel  and  a  traitor  a  martyr,  is  a  flagrant 
abuse  of  the  term. 

I  have  now  set  before  you,  my  friend,  a  true  picture  of 
Cranmer.  I  have  shown  him  to  you,  not  as  drawn  by  the 
prejudiced  hand  of  an  enemy,  but  as  drawn  by  himself,  as 
daguerreotyped  by  his  own  undeniable  acts  and  deeds.  If 
these  do  not  prove  him  to  have  been  a  w^icked  man,  then  it  is 
difficult  to  pass  such  a  judgment  upon  any  man  whose  acts 
are  matter  of  history.  Collect  together  the  many  atrocious 
acts  of  which  he  was  guilty,  and  you  cannot  fail  to  regard 
him  with  abhorrence  and  detestation.  And  whatever  friendly- 
opinion  you  may  have  of  the  cause  which  he  espoused,  you 
cannot  deny  that  his  conduct  was  more  befitting  a  tool  of  the 
devil  than  the  instrument  of  God — that  if  his  aim  was  to  re- 
form the  Church,  he  had  much  more  need  to  reform  himself — 
that  so  far  from  being  a  model  of  a  Christian,  a  saint  and 
martyr,  he  was  void  of  the  ordinary  virtues  of  an  honest 
man,  and  stained  wuth  crimes,  any  one  of  which  would  be 
sufficient  to  consign  other  men  to  perpetual  disgrace  and  exe- 
cration. Such  was  Thomas  Cranmer,  the  chief  abettor  of 
the  English  schism  and  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Commou 

o 

Prayer.  , 

Among  those  who  were  the  principal  agents  in  bringing 
about  the  English  Ecclesiastical  Revolution  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  there  is  yet  one  more  whose  character  must  be  ex- 
amined in  this  connection  ;  that  is.  Queen  Elizabeth.  Al- 
though that  unhappy  change  was  mainly  effected  under  the 
monster  Henry,  and  the  sickly  young  Edward,  yet  Elizabeth 
exerted  a  most  important  agency  in  establishing  and  perpet- 
uating it;  so  much  so,  that  but  for  her  it  would  probably  have 


L  E  T  T  E  R     1 1  .  89 

come  to  naught  with  tlie  death  of  Edward.  It  is  well  known 
that  under  Mary  the  Catholic  religion  was  restored  to  its 
former  position,  and  that  it  would  so  have  continued  had  not 
Elizabeth  espoused  the  Protestant  cause,  and  exerted  all  the 
ai^hority  and  power  of  the  throne  to  extirpate  the  ancient 
faith.  Elizabeth  was  the  daughter  of  Henry  VIII.,  by 
Anne  Boleyn.  and  it  may  be  truly  said  that  she  was  a  "  chip 
of  the  old  block,"  as  her  acts  jilainly  demonstrate.  She  was 
brought  up  a  I*rotestant,  but  under  the  reign  of  her  sister 
Mary  she  seems  to  have  become  a  convert  to  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion. After  a  week's  instruction  she  avowed  herself  a  Ca- 
tholic, and  from  that  time  accompanicfl  her  sister  to  3Iass, 
and  had  a  private  chapel  in  her  own  hou.se,  in  which  the  Ca- 
tholic worship  was  celebrated.*  On  the  death  of  Mary,  she 
succeeded  to  the  throne,  and  sent  a  notice  of  the  fact  to  the 
sovereigns  of  Europe,  and  among  them  the  Pope.  In  this 
notice  she  alleged  that  she  had  succeeded  by  "  hereditary 
right;"  but  this  "right"  the  Pope  was  unwilling  to  recog- 
nize, inasmuch  as  she  was  of  illegitimate  birth.  This  refusal 
at  once  aroused  her  resentment,  and  she  immediately  gave 
indications  that  she  would  favor  the  Protestant  cause.  She 
could  not  adhere  to  the  Catholic  religion,  and  at  the  same 
time  retain  her  crown— so  she  promptly  gave  up  the  former, 
and  held  on  to  the  latter.  Here  is  fact  numl)er  one,  and  it 
shows  plainly  that  Elizal)eth"s  religion  was  like  that  of 
Henry,  Latimer,  Cranmer  and  others  whom  I  have  noticed  ; 
something  to  be  altered,  or  relinquished  according  to  the 
pressure  of  external  circumstances.  In  this  she  only  imi- 
tated her  royal  father  :  he  rejected  the  Pope  because  he  was 
not  allowed  to  divorce  his  wife  and  take  another  ;  she,  because 
she  was  not  allowed  to  assume  a  crown.  There  were  other 
points  in  which,  with  no  less  discredit  she  resembled  her  ig- 
noble sire,  particularly  in  what  I  may  term  the  independence 
of  her  religion.  While  reijecting  the  Catholic  religion  she 
refused  to  accept  Protestantism,  as  it  was  generally  received 
by  its  followers  in  that  day.  Like  Henry,  she  was  deter- 
mined to  make  a  religion  for  herself,  and  have  cue  that  was 

*  It  appears  that  Mary  had  some  misgivings  as  to  the  .sincerity  of 
her  sister's  change,  or  at  least  desired  more  decided  proof  of  it.  When 
she  was  about  to  die  she  called  Elizabeth  to  her  bed-side  and  question- 
ed her  upon  the  subject.  Elizabeth  in  answer,  "prayed  God  that  the 
earth  miwht  open  and  swallow  her.  if  she  Averc  not  a  true  Roman 
Catholic." 


90  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

neither  Protestant  nor  Catholic,  but  a  sort  of  medley  of  the 
two.* 

Although  manifest  that  she  was  in  heart  a  Protestant, 
and  determined  to  abolish  the  Catholic  faith,  yet  she  was 
crowned  as  a  Cathohc,  by  a  Catholic  bishop,  and  with  the 
Catholic  ceremonial,  taking  the  usual  oath  of  adherence  to 
the  Church  and  the  Pope  !  In  this  she  was  guilty  of  just 
such  duplicity  and  hypocrisy  as  characterized  Cranmer's  con- 
secration as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

But  Elizabeth  w.  s  not  content  with  simply  renouncing  the 
Catholic  faith  for  herself,  as  the  dictate  of  policy,  but  she 
compelled  her  people  to  do  the  same.  I  have  mentioned  in  a 
former  letter  how  she  restored  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
after  revising  it  to  suit  her  own  views,  and  forced  it  upon 
the  Church  and  people  by  means  of  legal  enactments,  impos- 
ing fines  and  penalties  of  the  most  oppressive  and  ruinous 
character,  upon  all  who  refused  to  make  use  of  it.  Although 
she  had  once  embraced  the  Catholic  religion  herself,  and 
commenced  her  reign  as  a  Catholic,  yet  did  she  soon  after- 
wards interdict  the  practice  of  that  religion  to  her  subjects, 
and  exerted  all  the  power  of  the  throne  to  crush  out  that  re- 
ligion !f  Like  Henry,  she  was  a  cruel  and  bloody  persecu- 
tor. She  proclaimed  herself  "Head  of  the  Church,"  and 
put  to  death  all  who  refused  to  acknowledge  her  claim  to  that 
extraordinary  title,  that  is,  who  refused  to  acknowledge  a 
woman  as  their  spiritual  head  iustead  of  the  Pope.  She  ap- 
pointed a  Court  of  Inquisition  for  the  trial  of  heretics,  that 
is  such  as  did  not  receive  her  new-fangled  doctrines.     She 

*  Some  idea  of  lier  religious  sentiments  may  be  formed  from  the 
following  passage  from  Sficri's  Ilist.  of  the  Reformatiori :  "Elizabeth 
may  be  said  to  have  mixed  up  with  her  Protestantism,  many  feelings 
favoralde-to  Roman  Catholic  customs.  She  was  fond  of  outward 
show  in  religion,  as  was  visible  in  the  whole  question  about  the  eccle- 
siastical dresses.  She  retained  the  crucifix  in  her  own  chapel ;  she 
>vas  adverse  to  the  marriage  of  the  clergy.     (^  468,  note.) 

Apropos  to  the  last  jioiut.  Of  her  own  sole  authority  she  suspend- 
ed Fletcher,  Bishop  of  London,  for  marrying  "a  fine  lady  and  a  wi- 
dow !  "     See  IlallaDt  s  Const.  Ilist.^  vol.  i.  chap.  4.  note. 

fTliat  Elizabeth  professed  herself  a  Catholic  at  the  time  of  her  ac- 
cession to  the  throne,  and  for  a  short  time  after,  admits  of  no  doubt. 
About  a  month  after  her  accession  she  was  present  at  the  funeral  obse- 
quies of  her  sister,  celebrated  with  the  Catholic  ceremonies,  and  still 
later  she  had  a  Mass  of  requiem  said  for  Charles  V.,  and  she  attended 
Mass  as  usual,  and  received  the  H0I3'  Sacrament. 


LETTER     III.  91 

liad  her  iustruments  of  torture,  by  which  her  victims  were 
forced  to  confession.  The  number  of  Catholics  who  perished 
at  her  hands  for  not  apostatizing  as  she  had  done,  some  in 
prison,  some  on  tlie  rack,  some  on  the  gibbet,  and  others  at 
the  stake,  is  enormous.  Her  reign  was  truly  a  bloody  reign. 
It  is  said  that  as  many  as  five  hundred  persons  were  put  to 
death  in  a  single  year.  Among  the  cruel  and  atrocious 
murders  of  which  she  was  guilty,  for  such  they  were,  was 
that  of  Mary,  queen  of  Scots.  This  unhappy  woman  was  a 
cousin  of  Elizabeth's,  but  notwithstanding  their  relationship, 
Klizabeth,  prompted  by  envy  and  jealousy,  put  in  practice 
against  her  every  species  of  persecution.  She  fomented  re- 
bellion among  her  subjects,  had  her  imprisoned,  and  after 
many  years  of  suHcring  had  her  head  cut  off  by  the  public 
executioner  !"*  Elizabeth  was  indeed  a  modern  Jezebel. 
If  Ilenrj'  was  the  most  sanguinary  man,  she  was  the  most 
sanguinary  woman  that  ever  disgraced  a  throne. 

Elizabeth  was  a  remor.seless  despot,  and  reigned  with  ab- 
solute sway.  She  could  at  any  time  suspend  the  operation 
of  law,  and  give  the  force  of  law  to  any  proclamation  she 
chose  to  make.  Statutes  of  the  most  oppressive  and  bloody 
character  were  enacted  at  her  dictation,  and  her  will  wa^* 
law.  Her  despotism  was  not  confined  to  the  State,  but  ex- 
tended also  over  the  Church,  of  which  she  was  the  acknow- 
ledged head.  The  bishops  were  her  own  creatures,  and  she 
ruled  them  with  a  rod  of  iron,  as  they  well  deserved  for  their 
base  servility.  She  made  them  and  unmade  them,  at  her 
sovereign  pleasure.  When  Cox,  oneof  her  bishops,  ventured 
to  resist  some  act  of  spoliation  of  Church  property,  which 
she  had  sanctioned,  she  wrote  him  the  following  brief,  but 
charactoristic  note : — 

•'  Proud  Puel.\tk. 

' '  You  know  what  you  were  before  I  made  you  what  you 
are  ;  if  you  do  not  immediately  comply  with  my  request,  by 
Cun]  T  will  unfrock  you."  "  Eliz.\betii." 

(Ilalku/i.  Oms^t.  /list.,  vol.  i.  chap.  4.) 

*  This  act  aloue  was  sufficient  to  brand  the  character  of  Elizabeth 
with  di?(^racc.  The  Rev.  John  Keblc,  a  distinguished  clergyman  of 
the  Church  of  Phigland,  dues  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  the  execution 
of  Queen  Mary  '-a  great  national  crime.''  See  his  I'reface  to  Hooker' f 
Workg,  J).  3;!. 

9 


92  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Elizabeth  was  a  woman  of  haughty,  irritable  and  imperi- 
ous temper.  The  slightest  occasion  of  displeasure  threw  her 
into  a  towering  passion,  and  at  all  times  her  language  was 
freely  sprinkled  with  oaths.  Nor  was  her  violence  towards 
those  around  her  confined  to  words.  Her  courtiers,  and  even 
her  maids  of  honor  were  fi-equently  made  to  feel  the  weight 
of  her  blows. 

Besides  her  public  crimes,  she  was  stained  with  private 
vices.  She  has  been  called,  indeed  by  her  eulogists,  the 
Virgin  Queen,  but  it  is  a  title  to  which  she  had  no  just 
claim.  But  upon  this  subject  I  shall  merely  quote  a  passage 
from  one  of  the  most  reliable  historians  of  England : 

' '  It  was  not  long  before  her  familiarity  with  Dudley  pro- 
voked dishonorable  reports.  At  first  they  gave  her  pain — 
but  her  feelings  were  soon  blunted  by  passion  ;  in  the  face  of 
the  whole  court  she  assigned  to  her  supposed  paramour  an 
apartment  contiguous  to  her  own  bed  chamber — and  by  this 
indecent  act  proved  that  she  was  become  regardless  of  her 
character,  and  callous  to  every  sense  of  shame.  But  Dud- 
ley, though  the  most  favored,  was  not  considered  as  her  only 
lover  ;  among  his  rivals  were  numbered  Hatton  and  Raleigh, 
and  Oxford  and  Blount,  and  Simier,  and  Anjou ;  and  it  was 
afterwards  believed  that  her  licentious  habits  survived,  even 
when  the  fires  of  wantoness  had  been  quenched  by  the  chill 
of  age."     (^Lingard''s  Hist,  of  Eng.,  vol.  viii.  p.  424.) 

Such  was  Elizabeth,  who  restored  and  entailed  upon  her 
country  the  religious  system  of  Cranmer,  embodied  in  the 
Thirty  Nine  Articles  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
Under  the  Protestant  Edward,  she  is  a  Protestant,  under 
the  Catholic  Mary,  she  becomes  a  Catholic ;  succeeding  to 
the  throne  herself,  and  finding  the  Pope  unfavorable  to  her 
claims,  she  determines  to  renounce  his  authority,  and  with 
it  the  religion  which  she  had  embraced.  Nevertheless,  she 
conceals  her  intentions  for  a  time,  goes  to  Mass  like  a  good 
Catholic,  and  receives  her  crown  from  a  Catholic  bishop  with 
Catholic  rites,  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Catholic 
Church.  As  soon  as  she  is  settled  upon  the  throne,  she 
throws  off  the  mask,  abolishes  the  Catholic  liturgy,  drives 
the  Catholic  prelates  from  their  sees,  appoints  a  new  order  of 
bishops,  and  forces  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  once  more 
upon  the  nation.  She  then  conmiences  a  sanguinary  perse- 
cution against  the  Catholics,  putting  to  death  hundreds  of 
priests  and  laymen,  because  they  refused  to  renounce  the  re- 


LKTTKRIII.  93 

ligion  of  their  ancestors,  the  very  religion  which  she  herself 
had  so  recently  professed  and  sworn  to  maintain.  "While  her 
public  life  is  rendered  atrocious  by  duplicity,  perjury,  hy- 
pocrisy, sacrilege  and  murder,  her  private  life  is  shamefully 
dishonored  by  guilty  amours  with  her  numerous  favorites, 
making  her  court  the  scandal  of  the  world. 

I  have  now  given  a  brief  sketch  of  the  lives  of  the  prin- 
cipal actors  in  that  unfortunate  religious  change,  by  which 
England  was  made  to  relinquish  the  faith  of  antiquity,  and 
of  the  Catholic  world  for  the  crude  inventions  of  modern 
times.  In  doing  so,  I  have  not  been  guided  by  the  un- 
friendly reports  of  their  enemies,  but  confined  myself  to  their 
deeds  and  acts  as  recorded  upon  the  page  of  impartial  history. 
I  have  .set  before  you  Queen  Elizabeth,  Cranmer,  Latimer, 
Kidley,  Northumberland,  Somerset,  Cromwell  and  Henry 
VIII.  These  were  the  persons  by  whom  Catholicity  was 
abolished,  and  Protestantism,  with  its  ever  changing  doc- 
trines, and  its  ever  changing  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  was 
imposed  upon  the  English  people  by  means  of  brute  force. 
These  were  the  persons  by  whose  iustrimientality  millions  of 
men  have  been  alienated  from  the  religion  of  their  ancestors, 
and  involved  in  heresy  and  schism.  And  if  wicked  deeds 
prove  the  perpetrator  to  be  wicked ,  surely  these  persons  were 
pre-eminent  in  wickedness.  If  we  were  to  ransack  the  pages 
of  history  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  it  would  be  hard 
to  find  the  same  number  of  persons  engaged  in  any  one  un- 
dertaking, whose  aggregate  amount  of  crime  and  tui-pitude 
was  equal  to  theirs.  Their  deeds  of  iniquity  were  not  only 
the  blackest  that  men  can  commit,  but  they  were  augmented 
by  the  most  aggravating  circum.stauces.  There  are  several 
features  characterising  their  public  career,  to  which  I  desire  to 
direct  3'our  attention  for  a  moment.  They  were  the  founders 
of  Church-of-Englandism,  from  which  has  sprung  the  Epis- 
copalianism  of  this  country.  And  3-et  it  is  a  remarkable  and 
most  impressive  fact,  that  nearly  all  of  these  persons 
renounced  Protestantism  after  embracing  it !  Ridley  em- 
braced and  renounced  Protestantism,  alternately,  three  dis- 
tinct times  during  his  life.  f]lizabeth,  after  being  brought 
up  a  Protestant,  renomiced  Protestantism  under  Mary.  La- 
timer and  Cranmer,  both  renounced  it  when  in  prison  for 
their  treason.  Cromwell  and  Northumberland  both  renounc- 
ed it  on  the  scaffold,  and  died  lamenting  that  they  ever  em- 
braced it,  and  exhorting  their  hearers  not  to  be  seduced,  as 


94 


LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 


they  had  been.  Thus,  of  these  eight  founders  of  Anglican- 
ism, six  at  least  actually  and  solemnly  abjured  it  during  their 
lives.*  This  is  surely  a  most  significant  fact,  and  one  preg- 
nant with  warning  and  instruction.  If  the  very  authors  of 
Anglicanism  renounced  it,  and  some  of  them  with  their  dying 
lips,  how  can  others  confide  in  that  system  ?  This  fact  is  as 
extraordinary  as  it  is  instructive.  You  may  search  the  his- 
tory of  all  the  religious  sects  and  systems  that  have  existed 
in  the  world,  for  any  length  of  time,  and  you  cannot  find  a 
parallel  to  it, — cannot  find  another  instance  in  which  that 
sect  or  system  was  renounced  and  abjured  by  its  very  found- 
ers. Surely  nothing  could  have  kept  alive  such  a  system, 
but  the  strong  arm  of  the  civil  power,  bolstering  it  up  and 
exterminating  its  opposers. 

There  is  another  feature  about  these  persons,  worthy  of 
remark.  They  were  all  intolerant  bigots,  a'nd  bloody  perse- 
cutors, and  put  to  torture  and  cruel  deaths,  not  only  Catho- 
lics for  not  apostatising  as  they  had  done,  but  Protestants 
also  for  going  a  little  further  in  their  own  ppinciples.  They 
were  also  guilty  of  putting  to  death,  directly  and  indirectly, 
those  who  were  connected  with  them  by  the  ties  of  friend- 
ship and  relationship. 

There  is  yet  another  feature  about  them.  Nearly  all  of 
them,  six  out  of  eight,  perished  at  the  hands  of  the  public 
executioner,  as  felons,  traitors  and  rebels.  Of  the  remaining 
two,  the  last  moments  of  Henry  are  involved  in  obscurity 
and  contradiction,  although  no  one  can  doubt  that  he  must 
have  been  racked  by  remorse,  unless  too  hardened  in  his 
crimes — and  Elizabeth,  it  is  well  known,  in  her  last  sick- 
ness, left  her  bed,  and  lay  upon  the  ground  four  days  and 
nights,  refusing  all  sustenance  and  attendance,  sullen  and 
forlorn,  ending  her  career  in  sighs  and  groans. 

Such  were  the  persons  who  cast  off  the  Catholic  religion — 
as  a  class,  characterised  by  revolting  features,  and  as  indivi- 
duals rendered  infamous  by  crimes  which  make  one  shudder. 

To  call  such  men  "Reformers,"  is  an  outrage  upon  the 

English  language,  and  upon  decency.     You  might  as  well 

,call  the  assassin  a  pious  man.     Surely  no  one  would  have 

■-•■■  Perhaps  I  should  be  justified  in  saying  seven,  as  Heniy  VIII.  is 
said  to  liave  repented  of  bis  schism  in  his  Inst  moments.  It  is  certain 
that  he  had  Mass  said  in  his  sick  chamber,  and  left  a  large  sura  to 
have  Masses  said  annually  for  his  soul,  after  his  death. 


I.ETTERIII.  95 

ventured  to  do  so,  unless  utterly  ignorant  of  their  misdeeds, 
or  blinded  by  sectarian  zeal.  Protestants  of  the  present 
day  will  not,  I  am  eniifident,  undertake  to  defend  the  wicked 
acts  which  these  men  committed,  but  condemn  them  as 
heartily  as  I  do.  And  if  I  perform  the  unpleasant  task  of 
recounting  them,  it  is  not  to  re2)roach  those  of  the  present 
day  who  have  become  involved  in  their  system  by  birth  and 
education,  or  without  duo  knowledge  and  reflection.  I  do  it 
simply  to  vindicate  the  truth  and  the  Catholic  cause.  It  has 
been  alleged  that  these  men  were  '•  Keformcrs,"  and  the 
instruments  of  ({od.  I  disprove  the  assertion  by  shewing 
that  their  wicked  deeds  prove  that  they  were  the  slaves  of 
the  devil,  and  not  the  servants  of  God.  If  the  Church  was 
corrupt  at  that  period,  as  is  alleged,  certainly  these  men 
were  much  more  corrupt,  and  therefore  were  not  the  persons 
to  undertake  to  reform  others.  But  this  charge  of  corruption 
in  the  Church  was  a  mere  pretext,  as  the  whole  history  of 
the  times  shews.  Was  it  ecclesiastical  corruption  that  led 
Henry  VIII.  to  throw  off"  the  authority  of  the  Pope  ?  We 
have  seen  that  it  was  only  his  criminal  passion  for  Anne 
Boleyn — that  was  the  only  kind  of  corruption  that  impelled 
him  to  action.  And  yet  he  was,  from  this  very  cause,  the 
author  of  the  schism.  And  we  have  seen  that  his  schism 
was  forced  upon  the  bi.shops,  clergy  and  people,  by  penal 
enactments,  by  fines,  imprisonment  and  death.  It  was  sim- 
ply brute  force  that  brought  about  the  change,  first  under 
Henry,  then  under  Edward,  and  finally  under  Elizabeth.  That 
it  was  not  the  corruption  of  the  Church,  is  further  evident, 
from  the  fact,  that  these  so-called  "  Reformers,"  as  well  as 
the  people  generally,  changed  their  I'eligion  again  and  again, 
backwards  and  ftirwards,  according  to  the  standard  of  the 
sovereign  for  the  time  being.  Under  Henry  they  all  became 
Protestants  after  Henry's  stamp.  Under  Edward  and  his 
"protectors"  they  became  Protestants  of  a  more  decided 
character.  But  when  the  Catholic  Mary  bears  the  sceptre, 
presto,  the  whole  scene  shifts, — they  all  repent  of  their 
Protestantism,  fall  upon  their  knees,  and  return  as  penitents 
to  the  Catholic  fold,  including  Elizabeth  herself  I  But  after 
a  little  while,  Elizabeth,  seated  upon  the  throne,  has  a  per- 
sonal difi'erence  with  the  Pope,  likelier  father,  and  forthwith, 
like  him,  she  forsakes  the  ('atholic  Church,  and  "  sets  up" 
a  Church  for  herself,  taking  care  to  place  her  own  dear  self 
at  the  head  of  it,  as  her  precious  father  had  done  for  himself. 
9* 


96  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

And  mark  the  result.  The  whole  nation  is  gradually  Pro- 
testantized again  according  to  her  stamp — with  the  aid  of 
the  rack,  the  gibbet,  the  stake,  and  other  trifling  appliances 
of  that  sort.  At  a  later  period,  as  we  have  seen,  the.  nation 
became  Presbyterian  under  the  rule  of  Oliver  Cromwell. 
Afterwards,  when  an  Episcopalian  became  monarch  again, 
the  nation  became  Episcopalian  again.  Looking  at  these 
facts,  it  is  plain  that  Church  corruption  had  nothing  to  do 
with,  the  matter.  The  only  true  explanation  is  this :  the 
sovereign  was  absolute  in  those  days,  and  whatever  religion 
he  adopted,  he  forced  upon  the  people.  They  who  refused 
to  comply,  were  gradually  exterminated,  driven  into  exile,  or 
put  to  death.  Thus  it  was  under  Elizabeth,  those  remaining 
being  forced  to  conform,  and  their  children  were  afterwards 
brought  up  in  the  new  doctrines,  and  taught  especially  to 
hate  the  Pojje  and  all  his  Catholic  doctrines  and  practices. 
This  is  the  way,  my  fiiend,  you  and  I,  and  millions  of  others, 
happened  to  be  brought  up  in  schism.  Had  a  Mahometan 
ascended  the  throne,  instead  of  Elizabeth,  or  instead  of 
Charles  II.,  the  same  causes  would  probably  have  made  us 
all  true  followers  of  the  Prophet,  and  we  should  have  been 
taught  to  hate  Christ,  as  well  as  the  Pope. 

The  doctrines  of  the  Church  in  England,  at  the  time  of 
the  schism  were  precisely  the  same  as  those  held  by  that 
Church  from  its  earliest  origin.  This  has  been  clearly  es- 
tablished from  the  oldest  historical  records  and  documents, 
by  Dr.  Lingard,  in  his  History  of  tlte  Anglo  Saxon  Church, 
to  which  work  I  would  refer  any  one  who  may  desire  to  in- 
vestigate the  subject.  That  there  had  been  no  recent  doc- 
trinal change,  all  admit;  and  they  who  allege  a  change,  are 
prudent  enough  to  refer  it  to  some  remote,  undefined  period, 
or  speak  of  it  as  a  gi-adual,  imperceptible  operation,  spread- 
ing through  long  ages,  but  occurring  at  no  time  in  particular  I 
This  is  a  poor  compliment,  certainly,  to  our  Christian  fore- 
fathers, as  if  they  were  less  careful  of  the  integrity  and  purity 
of  the  faith,  than  their  children,  since  Heniy  VIII.  It  is 
a  poor  compliment  to  the  Church  of  God,  and  would  render 
her  utterly  unworthy  to  be  our  mother  and  guide — for  if  she 
has  failed  at  one  time,  she  may  do  so  again.  Besides,  Eng- 
land was  in  communion  with  the  whole  Catholic  world,  and 
her  doctrines  were  the  same  as  those  everywhere  held. 
Consequently,  if  she  was  wrong,  the  whole  Church  was 
wrong.      And  if  that  was  the  case,  that  article  in  the  Apos- 


L  E  T  T  K  U     I  I  I  .  97 

tie's  Creed,  which  the  Episcopalians  have  retained,  could  not 
be  true — /  hclicre  in  (he  Holji  Catholic  l.'liurclt.  I  might 
proceed  in  this  strain  of  remarks  to  shew  the  absurdity  of  the 
plea,  that  the  Church  in  England  was  corrupt;  but  it  is 
enough  that  it  can  be  proved  by  tlie  clearest  historical  evi- 
dence, that  the  deictrincs  of  that  Church  had  undergone  no 
substantial  change,  from  the  earliest  period  of  her  existence 
down  to  the  fatal  inojnent  of  her  severance  from  Catholic 
unity.  But  it  is  not  even  necessary  to  prove  that  that  cause 
did  not  exist,  since  it  has  been  shown  that  in  point  of  fact, 
the  separation  did  not  take  place  on  that  ground.  It  was 
the  criminal  passion  of  Henry  A'lll.,  in  the  first  place,  and 
afterwards  the  circumstances,  or  temper,  or  belief  of  the 
reigning  monarch,  that  brought  into  existence  the  liturgy 
and  doctrine  of  Anglicanism.  It  is  true  that  there  were 
corrupt  persons  in  the  Church,  as  there  always  have  been, 
not  excepting  the  Apostolic  age.  But  foremost  among 
these  corrupt  persons,  were  the  very  individuals  who  are 
now  dubbed  "  Ileformers."  Who  was  more  corrupt  than 
Henry  Vni.,  Cromwell,  Cranmer  and  Elizabeth  V  I  have 
shewn  that  these  men,  and  their  principal  co-laborers,  in 
changing  the  faith  and  worship  of  the  nation,  were  all  guilty 
of  horrid  crimes.  Besides  these,  there  were  many  others 
who  rallied  around  them,  impelled,  some  by  fear,  some  by 
the  love  of  j^lunder,  and  some  from  other  human  motives. 
These  were  the  "  corruptions" — the  corrupt  individuals  of 
that  period.  I  will  venture  the  assertion,  that  in  no  other 
age  of  the  Church,  can  j'ou  find  the  same  number  of  conspi- 
cuous persons,  such  as  kings  and  prelates,  who  could  match 
them  in  deeds  of  depravity  and  blood. 

The  charge  of  error  and  corruption  made  against  the 
Church  is  not  a  new  one — it  is  as  old  almost  as  the  Church. 
All  the  heresiarchs  of  ancient  times  and  of  every  age  have 
urged  the  same  argument  in  defence  of  their  separation  from 
the  Church.  And  indeed,  the  same  argument  has  been  used 
against  Anglicanism  by  her  own  children,  with  terrible  ef- 
fect. ^\  hy  did  the  Presbyterians,  and  the  Baptists,  and  the 
jMethodists,  and  the  Quakers,  and  some  fifty  other  sects  se- 
parate from  the  Protestant  Church  of  England?  On  the 
very  ground  upon  which  that  Church  is  said  to  have  separa- 
ted ft'om  the  Catholic  Cliurch — error  and  corruption. 

Had  the  Church  needed  reforming,  it  belonged  to  the  pre- 
lates and  to  councils  to  eflFect  the  work,  and  not  to  vicious 


98  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

kings  and  queens.  When  a  corruption  of  manners  ensues, 
it  is  not  the  wicked  who  come  forward,  or  should  come  for- 
ward to  sweep  away  the  moral  filth.  God  raises  up  holy 
priests  and  bishops  to  do  his  work,  and  not  such  monsters  as 
Henry  VIII. 

But  some  persons,  while  acknowledging  and  condemning 
the  wicked  lives  of  these  men,  persist  in  regarding  them  ag 
the  "  instruments"  of  God  in  bringing  about  a  good  work. 
This  is  assuming,  first,  that  the  work  which  they  efieeted 
was  a  good  work — which  is  a  false  assumption.  Their  work 
was  not  good,  but  bad — if  ecclesiastical  rebellion  and  schism 
be  a  bad  work,  as  the  Scriptures  unquestionably  teach  us. 
Bishop  Short  speaks  of  these  men  not  merely  as  "in- 
struments," but  necessary  instruments.  He  considers,  as 
do  others,  Henry  A^III.  as  a  necessary  agent  in  the  work  of 
"  Keformation" — that  without  him  or  some  such  man  it  could 
not  have  been  effected.  This  is  no  doubt  very  true.  But 
only  consider  what  all  this  imjjlies.  To  say  that  such  men 
were  necessary  to  the  work,  is  to  say  that  their  wicked  deeds 
were  necessary — for  we  cannot  on  this  question  separate 
them  from  their  evil  deeds.  It  was  precisely  their  evil  deeds 
that  made  them  such  men  as  they  Avere.  ^Vithout  such 
deeds  they  wovxld  have  been  difierent  men,  and  the  "  glori- 
ous work  of  Reformation"  would  not  have  taken  place. 
Their  evil  deeds  were  the  means  by  which  they  succeeded ; 
and  they  were  the  only  means  by  which  they  could  have  suc- 
ceeded. This  is  the  Protestant  argument,  exjiressed  in  its 
true  character.  It  may  not  be  intended  by  this  reasoning, 
to  defend  all  the  acts  of  these  men  in  jmrtictda)-.  But  there 
are  necessarily  two  things  at  least,  to  be  defended  by  the 
supporters  of  that  cause.  In  the  first  place,  they  must  de- 
fend and  justify  the  possession  and  exercise  of  absolute 
power  and  xinbounded  despotism,  on  the  part  of  the  Pro- 
testant monarch.  We  have  seen  that  Henry  did  assume  this 
power,  and  it  is  evident  that  he  could  have  done  nothing 
without  it.  He  either  set  at  naught  the  laws  of  the  land,  or 
had  new  laws  enacted  at  his  own  will  and  pleasure.  •  He  lit- 
erally did  what  he  pleased,  to  Church  and  State.  Of  course, 
the  exercise  of  this  despotic  power  was  not  acquiesced  in  by 
all.  Consequently,  persecution  became  necessary  to  enforce 
compliance.  Accordingly,  Sir  Thomas  More,  Bishop  Fisher 
and  hundreds  of  others  were  cruelly  put  to  death.  Henry 
could  not  have  carried  out  his  work  but  by  putting  down  all 


I,  K  T  T  K  K      III.  99 

opposition  and  exterminating  those  who  refused  to  comply 
with  liis  innovations.  It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  for 
the  advocates  of  his  schism  to  justify  his  tyranny  and  hig 
bloody  persecutions.  This  conclusion  is  inevitable.  You 
say  these  men  were  the  instruments  of  God,  and  that  they 
were  raised  up  for  this  very  purpose.  Now  there  was  but 
one  way  by  which  tliey  could  do  their  work,  and  that  was  by 
tyranny  and  blood.  And  if  they  diJ  their  work  in  the  only 
possible  way,  you  are  bound  to  approve  of  that  way,  how- 
ever abhorrent  it  may  be  to  your,  sense  of  right  and  human- 
ity ;  or  else  you  must  renounce  their  work  altogether. 

But  these  men  were  not  tlie  instruments  of  God,  except 
as  Pharaoh,  Nero,  and  other  like  scourges  of  the  human  race 
were  His  in.struments.  The  Almighty,  in  IJis  inscrutable 
Providence,  permitted  them  to  oppress  and  destroy  his  people 
in  the  indulgence  of  their  bad  passions ;  but  to  assert  that 
He  therefore  approved  of  them  or  of  their  work,  would  be 
little  short  of  blasphemy.  No;  these  men  were  the  instru- 
ments of  the  devil.  Their  bad  passions  prove  that  they  were 
under  wicked  influence.  And  as  their  spirit,  motives  and 
means  were  bad,  so  likewise  was  their  work  bad.  Our  Sa- 
viour Himself,  while  warning  us  against  unjust  judgments, 
has  taught  us  to  judge  of  men  by  their  works.  "  Beware  of 
false  prophets  who  come  to  j-ou  in  the  clothing  of  sheep,  but 
inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves,  ^y  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them." 

The  "  corruptions  of  the  Cliureh"  before  the  schism  of 
Henry  VIII.,  and  the  ''immoralities  of  the  Catholic  cler- 
gy" then  and  at  other  times,  are  continually  thrust  forward 
by  certain  Protestant  writers  in  their  controversial  discus- 
sions. Such  accounts  have  originated  with  our  enemies,  and 
are  either  entirely  false  or  greatly  exaggerated.  But  what- 
ever may  be  thought  of  this  assertion,  the  Anglican  bishops 
and  clergy  were  far  fi'om  being  without  reproach,  long  after 
what  is  falsely  called  the  "  Eefnrmation."  This  can  be 
abundantly  proved,  not  by  the  testimony  of  Catholics,  but 
by  that  of  Protestants.  Hear  what  Hallani  says  of  the 
bishops  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  :  "  The  bishops  of 
this  reign,"  says  he,  "  do  not  appear,  with  some  distinguish- 
ed exceptions,  to  have  reflected  so  much  honor  on  the  Estab- 
lished Church  as  those  who  attach  a  superstitious  reverence 
to  the  age  of  the  Reformation  are  apt  to  conceive.     In  the 


100  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

jylunder  that  went  forirard  they  took  good  care  of  themselves.''^ 
(^Constit.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  vol.  i.  chap.  4.) 

The  same  Protestant  authority  mentions  a  fact,  which 
shows  a  state  of  morals  in  the  clergy  of  the  most  revolting 
character.  "In  the  diocese  of  Bangor,"  he  says,  "  it  was 
usual  for  the  clergy,  some  years  after  Elizabeth's  accession, 
to  pay  the  bishop  for  a  license  to  keep  a  concubine."  (^Ibid, 
note.  Refers  to  Strype's  life  of  Parker,  p.  203.)  In  the  same 
author  we  have  also  the  following  passage  in  reference  to  the 
condition  of  the  Anglican  Church  at  that  time  : — 

"A  disorderly  state  of  the  Church,  arising  partly  from 
the  want  of  any  fixed  rules  of  discipline,  partly  from  the  ne- 
gligence of  some  bishops,  and  simony  of  others,  but  above 
all  from  the  rude  state  of  manners  and  general  ignorance  of 
the  clergy,  is  the  common  theme  of  complaint  in  this  period, 
and  aggravated  the  increasing  disaffection  towards  the  pre- 
lacy."     (Ibid,  vol.  i.  chap.  4.) 

The  abuses  prevalent  in  this  Reformed  Church  were  so 
flagrant,  that  even  the  power  of  Parliament  was  invoked  to 
check  them,  and  a  bill  was  accordingly  introduced  for  the 
purpose,  A.  D.,  1571.  Hear  what  Hallam  says  upon  this 
subject : 

"  Abuses  in  respect  to  benefices  appear  to  have  been  a 
copious  theme  of  scandal.  The  power  of  dispensation,  which 
had  occasioned  so  much  clamor  in  former  ages,  instead  of 
being  abolished,  or  even  reduced  into  bounds  at  the  Refor- 
mation, had  been  transferred  entire  from  the  Pope  to  the 
King,  and  Archbishop.  And  after  the  Council  of  Trent  had 
effected  such  considerable  reforms  in  the  Catholic  discipline, 
it  seemed  a  sort  of  reproach  to  the  Protestant  Church  of 
England,  that  she  retained  all  her  dispensations,  the  exemp- 
tions, the  pluralities,  which  had  been  deemed  the  peculiar 
corruptions  of  the  worst  times  of  Popery."     (^Ihid.') 

Such  my  friend,  was  the  condition  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, nearly  a  half  of  a  century  after  its  origin.  According 
to  this  Protestant  historian,  it  still  retained  scandalous 
abuses,  which  the  Catholic  Church  had  abolished.  AVhich 
then  was  the   ' '  Reforming  "  Church  ? 

I  have  now  set  before  you  the  real  character  of  the  men, 
and  the  means  by  which  the  old  Catholic  worship  was  abol- 
ished and  a  new  liturgy  imposed  upon  the  people,  and  which 
has  since  been  entailed  upon  their  descendants.  You,  my 
friend,   like  many   others,   were   taught  to  look  upon   that 


LETTKR      III.  101 

change  as  brought  about  by  the  gradual  dawn  of  "  Gospel 
light;"  that  this  light  penetrated  tlie  Church,  causing  it  to 
cast  oft'  the  rags  of  Popery  in  which  she  had  been  wrapped 
for  centuries,  and  to  put  on  the  new  garnieut  of  righteous- 
ness. This  is  a  very  pretty  idea,  and  very  captivating  to 
the  imagination,  liut  unfortunately  for  those  who  luiUl  it, 
it  has  no  foundation  in  fact,  as  I  have  abundantly  proved. 
The  plea  of  corruption  was  altogether  an  aftcrtliought.  It 
was  not  set  up  until  after  the  Reformation  hud  becu  efl'ccted. 
The  separation  was  made,  as  I  have  shown  you,  not  at  all 
upon  tluit  ground,  but  solely  on  account  of  the  Pope's  re- 
fusing to  sanction  Henry's  divorce  from  his  faitliful  wife. 
The  plea  of  corruption  was  invented  afterwards,  to  justify 
what  had  been  done  upon  a  very  different  ground.  It  has 
ever  since  been  found  to  be  a  convenient  and  powerfiil  rally- 
ing-cry  in  defence  of  the  change  and  against  P.ome ;  but  it 
was  and  is  only  a  pretext.  The  whole  change  was  the  dic- 
tate of  passion  or  of  policy,  and  was  fffect(^d  hy  the  civil 
power,  by  brute  force ,  in  ojiposition  to  the  Church.  This  has 
been  proved  by  an  appeal  to  historical  facts,  and  it  is  vain  to 
attempt  to  deny  it.  It  was  begun  by  Henry,  carried  on  by 
Edward,  and  consiunmatcd  by  Elizabeth — the  bishops  and 
priests  being  either  made  tools  of  or  exterminated.  It  was 
conceived  in  sin,  and  brought  forth  iu  iniquity.  It  was 
commenced  by  Henry  in  his  lust,  and  it  was  consummated 
by  Elizabeth,  the  illegitimate  frviit  of  that  lust. 

A.  B. 


LET TEH  IV. 

Title  of  the  Prayer-Book. — Remarks  on  the  Preface. — Ta)jle.s  of  Les- 
sons.— Festivals  and  Saints'  Days. — In  the  Prayer-Book,  but  not 
observed. — "Apocryphar'  Books  of  Scripture  read. — The  Calen- 
dar.— English  and  American  compared. — Great  clianges  in  the  lat- 
ter.— Saints  of  the  "Dark  Ages"  found  in  the  English  Calendar. — 
Festival  of  the  Conception  of  the  Virgin. — Only  one  Anglican  Saint, 
King  Charles. — Departure  from  Standards.' — Rogation  and  Ember 
Days. — The  Festivals,  &c.,  borrowed  from  the  Catholic  Church. — 
The  "Morning  Praj-er"'  examined. — Confession  and  Absolution. — 
The  Catholic  and  Protestant  Doctrine  of  Forgiveness  of  Sins  com- 
pared.— Priestly  Absolution  taught  in  various  places. — Argumentg 
and  Protestant  admissions  in  its  favor. — The  Gloria  in  Excelsis. — 
The  Te  Deum. 

My  Dear  Friend  : 

Having  in  my  previous  letters  set  before  you  the  origin 
and  history  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  I  beg  your 
attention  while  I  proceed  to  examine  the  doctrine  which  it 
inculcates.  In  the  order  which  I  propose  to  adopt,  I  shall 
commence  at  the  beginning,  and  go  regularly  through  the 
book,  making  such  comments  as  the  pature  of  each  part  may 
happen  to  suggest,  using  the  American  Prayer-Book,  but 
pointing  out  the  differences  between  it  and  the  English 
Prayer-Book  wherever  these  differences  possess  a  doctrinal 
bearing. 

In  opening  the  book,  my  attention  is  first  arrested  by  the 
title-page,  about  which  there  is  something  suggestive,  al- 
though I  cannot  linger  on  the  threshold.  It  is  called  "  The 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  according 
to  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Egiscopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America."  The  phrase  "  o^Ac/- rites  and  ceremo- 
nies," seems  to  imply  that  the  ' '  Sacraments"  belong  to  the 
same  class,  and  consequently  not  of  binding  obligation.  But 
that  which  appears  most  striking  is  the  clause  ' '  of  the 
Church,"  "  the  Sacraments  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies 
cf  the.  Church,'^  according  to  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church.     Til  is  language  evidently  implies  that  tliere  is 

(  102  ) 


LKTTKU    IV.  103 

some  great  organization  called  "  the  Clmrch,"  besides  the 
one  for  whose  use  the  book  is  intended.  If  so,  it  is  natural 
that  the  Episcopalian  should  desire  to  become  accpiainted 
with  it.  In  the  English  Prayer-Book  the  title  is  the  same, 
except  that  it  reads,  "  according  to  the  use  of  the  Oluirch 
of  England." 

Passing  over  the  "  Table  of  Contents,"  we  come  to  the 
"Preface,"  with  which  the  American  book  has  been  fur- 
nished. This  is  important  as  showing  the  mind  of  those  who 
were  concerned  in  organizing  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  They  trace  their  origin  thus:  "The  Church  of 
England,  to  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
States  is  indebted,  under  (Jod,  for  her  first  foundation  and  a 
long  continuance  of  nursing,  care  and  protection,"  They 
proceed  to  justify  themselves  in  making  alterations  in  the 
book,  on  the  ground  that  the  Mother  Chui-ch  had  made 
"different  reviews  and  alterations"  and  would  have  made 
further  alterations  if  she  could.  It  says.  "  A  connnission 
for  a  review  was  issued  in  1689,  But  this  great  and  good 
work  miscarried  at  that  time  :  and  the  civil  authority  has  not 
since  thought  proper  to  revive  it  by  any  new  commission." 
This  is  an  important  acknowledgment.  A  proposed  change 
in  the  Praj^er-Book,  after  the  many  alterations  it  had  already 
experienced,  is  called  a  "  great  and  good  work."  Surely  it 
must  haA^e  sadly  needed  reviewing,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
founders  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  that  after 
it  had  been  in  use  more  than  two  centuries.  This  testimony 
here  given,  also  confirms  what  I  have  set  forth  in  my  history 
of  the  book,  viz  :  that  it  was  the  "  civil  authority"  that 
made,  altered  and  revised  the  book,  according  to  the  royal 
will  and  pleasure. 

The  next  passage  in  the  "  Preface,"  worthy  of  notice,  is 
this  :  "  But  when,  in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  these 
American  States  became  independent  with  respect  to  civil 
government,  their  ecclesiastical  independence  was  necessarily 
included  ;  and  the  different  religious  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians in  these  States  were  left  at  full  and  equal  liberty  to 
model  and  organize  their  respective  cluirches  and  forms  of 
worship  and  discipline  in  such  manner  as  they  might  judge 
most  convenient  for  their  future  prosperity,"  This  is  a  most 
extraordinary  opinion.  It  is  thoroughly  Erastian,  It  makes 
the  Church  dependent  upon  civil  changes.  Political  inde- 
pendence involves  ecclesiastical  independence  !  What  inad- 
ecjuate  ideas  these  men  must  have  had  concerning  the  Cljurfh 
10 


104  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

of  God,  its  unity  and  authority.  Before  the  Revolution 
they  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London  ; 
but  as  soon  as  they  are  freed  from  the  dominion  of  the  king, 
they  are  freed  also  from  the  jurisdiction  of  their  bishop,  and 
become  independent.  Such  was  their  idea,  and  certainly  it 
was  only  in  keeping  with  what  Cranmer  and  the  other 
founders  of  the  Church  of  England  held  and  taught  as  to 
the  right  of  the  sovereign  over  his  subjects  in  spirituals  as 
well  as  temporals.  Every  one  must  perceive  that  this  prin- 
ciple is  destructive  of  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  even  of 
Episcopal  authority.  And  the  day  may  come,  when  it  will 
be  put  in  practice  in  this  country  to  the  disruption  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

This  passage  is  also  remarkable,  because  it  asserts  that 
this  liberty — the  liberty  to  form  an  independent  Church — 
was  left  equally  to  the  ' '  different  religious  denominations  of 
Christians  in  these  States."  Upon  this  they  base  their  right 
to  proceed  to  organize.  They  thus  admitted  that  they  were 
only  one  of  "  the  different  religious  denominations."  They 
had  no  idea  of  establishing  an  exclusive  church — they  did 
not  consider  themselves  as  "  the  Church,"  to  the  dispai'age- 
ment  of  other  sects.  They  left  such  empty  pretensions  to 
their  children  of  the  present  day.  They  placed  themselves 
and  others  upon  an  equal  footing.  "The  different  reli- 
gious denominations  of  Christians  were  left,"  said  they,  "  at 
full  and  equal  liberty  to  model  and  organize  their  respec- 
tive churches"  as  they  thought  proper.  According  to  this 
admission,  Methodists,  Presbyterians  and  other  sects  had 
' '  full  and  equal  liberty"  to  adopt  their  respective  forms 
of  church  polity  to  the  exclusion  of  Episcopacy.  And  yet 
Episcopalians  of  the  present  day  attack  these  denomina- 
tions as  if  marred  by  fatal  defects,  and  in  a  state  of  schism  I 
The  fact  is,  that  the  original  founders  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  did  not  consider  Episcopacy  essential  to 
tlie  Church.  Bishop  White,  one  of  their  leading  spirits, 
went  so  far  as  to  write  a  pamphlet,  to  prove  that  bishops 
could  be  dispensed  with  under  the  pressure  of  circumstances  I 
So  that  after  all  the  controversies  which  Episcopalians  have 
waged  with  other  sects  on  the  question  of  Episcopacy,  their 
own  denomination  came  very  near  being  a  ' '  church  without 
a  bishop."* 

••••  I  mean  even  in  form.  In  point  of  fact,  it  is  a  church  without  a 
bishop,  since  its  bishops  lack  a  valid  consecration.  But  upon  that 
point  I  shall  have  something  to  say  at  the  proper  time. 


L  E  T  T  E  K     IV.  105 

But  let  US  now  advance  to  the  "Tables  of  Lessons." 
These  are  arranged  under  the  general  title  of  "  Tables  of 
Lessons  of  Holy  Scripture  to  be  read  at  Morning  and  Even- 
ing Prayer  throughout  the  year."  We  have,  under  this 
caption,  a  Table  of  Lessons  for  Sundays,  another  for  "  Holy 
Days,"  and  others  for  each  month.  We  find  here,  provision 
made  for  "  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer  throughout  the 
year."  And  yet  not  one  Episcopalian  Church  in  fifty  is 
opened  daily  for  the  prescribed  services.  Their  churches  are 
all  closed  from  Monday  morning  until  Saturday  night,  ex- 
cept a  few  under  the  pastorship  of  Puseyite  clergymen,  and 
some  others  for  an  occasional  service  during  the  week.  The 
daily  service  laid  down  in  the  Prayer-Books,  is  thus  almost 
entirely  unknown  in  practical  Episcopalianism.  Daily  wor- 
ship is  left  for  the  Catholics. 

We  find,  as  I  have  said,  a  table  of  lessons  to  be  read  on 
the  "Holy  Days."  Among  the  "Holy  Days"  here  enu- 
merated, we  find  those  of  St.  Andrew  and  the  other  Apos- 
tles, Eplphanij  of  our  Lord,  the  Purification  and  Annuncia- 
tion of  the  Virgin  Mary,  Ascension  Day,  Good  Friday,  St. 
3fichael  and  AH  Saints.  A  special  service  is  appointed  for 
all  these  days.  And  yet  we  sometimes  meet  with  Episcopa- 
lians who  ridicule  Catholics  for  observing  Saints'  days !  A 
most  extraordinary  inconsistency.  An  Episcopalian,  when 
finding  fault  with  such  things  among  Catholics,  was  re- 
minded that  there  were  similar  Saints'  days  in  her  Prayer- 
Book,  she  very  naively  replied,  "Yes,  but  we  don't  keep 
them  I"  Li  this  she  was  correct.  The  great  mass  of  Epis- 
copalians do  not  keep  them.  Except  a  few  high  churchmen 
here  and  there,  they  completely  ignore  them.  There  are 
three  Episcopal  churches,  almost  in  sight  of  me  at  this  mo- 
ment, which  are  never  opened  upon  any  one  of  the  thirty-six 
days  laid  down  in  this  table,  except  Good  Friday.  And 
what  is  more,  if  their  pastors  were  to  give  notice  of  these 
days,  and  have  the  prescribed  service  on  them,  they  would 
incur  the  displeasure  of  their  flocks,  and  probably  receive 
notice  that  their  services  were  no  longer  re<|uired. 

There  is  one  alteration  in  this  table  from  the  P]nglish 
Prayer-Book,  which  I  must  notice  in  passing.  Among  the 
festivals  designated,  is  the  "Annunciation  of  our  Lady." 
This  is  a  title  which  only  Catholics  give  to  that  blessed 
woman,  and  which  many  Episcopalians  would  be  quite 
shocked  to  hear  applied  to  her.     They  vrould  turn  it  into  ri- 


106  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

dicule.  And  yet  there  it  is  in  the  English  Prayer-Book  ta 
this  day.  It  was  "  revised"  out  of  the  American  Book:  it 
sounded  too  Popish.  It  was  changed  into  the  "  Annuncia- 
tion of  the  Virgin  Mary."  If  however,  we  turn  to  the  ser- 
vice appointed  for  this  day,  we  find  it  headed,  "  The  Annun- 
ciation of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary."  It  is  well  that  the 
Mother  of  our  Lord  receives  that  honor  in  the  Prayer-Book : 
although  in  practice,  Episcopalians  seldom  call  her  even  the 
"  Blessed  Virgin."  By  the  great  mass  of  them  she  is  en- 
tirely lost  sight  of,  or  if  perchance  remembered  or  mentioned, 
it  is  only  as  an  ordinary  woman  and  mother.  They  seem  to 
have  entirely  overlooked  such  passages  of  Scripture  as  these  : 
"From  henceforth  all  generations  shall  call  me  blessed." 
And  the  words  of  Elizabeth,  and  of  the  Angel  Gabriel,  ad- 
dressed to  her  "Blessed  art  thou  among  women."  (^St. 
Luke  chap.  1.)  In  this,  as  in  many  other  things,  Episco- 
palians have  become  more  anti-Catholic  than  the  founders  of 
their  religion.  Let  it  not  then  be  forgotten,  that  in  the 
English  Prayer-Book,  to  this  day,  the  Blessed  Mother  of 
our  Lord,  is  called  "  our  Lady,"  although  I  doubt  not  that 
that  appellation  would  have  been  expunged,  together  with 
other  things,  if  the  "civil  authority"  had  permitted  that 
great  and  good  work  "  (another  revision)  to  have  taken  place. 
We  have  seen  that  the  American  revisers  threw  it  out,  es- 
teeming it  too  great  an  honor  to  bestow  upon  the  Immacu- 
late Mother  of  our  God.  Ashamed  were  they  to  acknow- 
ledge her  as  "  our  Lady,"  to  whom  the  Divine  Jesus  was 
"  subject"  for  so  many  years,  and  whom,  when  dying  upon 
the  cross,  he  left  as  a  Mother  to  St.  John,  and  through  him, 
to  all  Christians  in  these  tender  words,  ' '  Behold  thy  Mother." 
(St.  John  xis.  27.) 

There  is  another  remarkable  feature  about  this  ' '  Table  of 
lessons  for  Holy  Days."  Among  the  lessons  prescribed  to  be 
read  in  Church,  are  no  less  than  fourteen  from  the  books  of 
Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus !  Episcopalians  will  look  in  vain 
into  their  Bibles  for  these  and  several  other  books,  unless 
they  happen  to  possess  a  copy  of  the  old  folio  Bible.  Pro- 
testants have  left  these  books  out  of  the  Bible  printed  for 
general  circulation.  They  are  omitted  as  uninspired  and 
Apocryphal,  contrary  to  the  belief  and  jwaetice  of  the  Ca- 
tholic Church.  With  a  singular  inconsistency  Episcopalians 
refuse  to  receive  them  as  divine  and  canonical,  and  yet  read 


L  E  T  T  E  Jl     IV 


107 


them,   like  tlie  other  Scriptures,   for  the  instruction  of  the 
people  1 

Let  us  now  advance  to  the  tables  of  lessons  for  each 
month,  that  is,  for  that  daily  service,  which  is  not  performed, 
except  in  a  very  few  parishes,  where  it  is  sustained  by  dint 
of  special  effort  on  the  part  of  the  pastors  and  a  handful  of 
people,  and  who  receive  for  their  pains  the  unpleasant  nick- 
names of  "  Puseyites"  and  "  Romanists."  Along  with  these 
tables  is  a  "  calendar,"  an  ecclesiastical  calendar,  in  which 
are  noted  the  principal  festivals  and  Saints'  days  of  the  year, 
as  in  the  Catholic  31is8al.  The  most  noticeable  feature  about 
this  calendar,  is  the  sweeping  change  which  has  been  made 
in  it  by  the  American  revisers.  As  the  eye  runs  down  its 
length,  it  presents  only  a  protracted  blank,  relieved  here  and 
there  by  such  notes  as  "Epiphany"  and  "St.  Mark." 
"Whereas,  the  Calendar  of  the  English  Prayer-Book  is  much 
more  "  Popish,"  in  fact,  is  decidedly  "  Popish,"  thick  with 
Catholic  festivals  and  Saints.  I  find  there  noted  the  festivals  of 
the  "  Holy  Cross,"  and  the  "  Invention  of  the  Cross,"  and  the 
"  Name  of  Jesus,"  the  "  Nativity  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  the 
"  Visitation  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  and  even  the  "  Conception 
of  the  Virgin  Mary."  Among  the  host  of  Saints  therein  com- 
memorated, who  have  lived  long  since  the  Apostles,  I  find  SS. 
Cyprian  and  Crispin  of  the  third  century;  SS.  Benedict  and 
Britius  of  the  fourth  century  ;  S.  Remegius,  Gregory  and  Au- 
gustine of  the  sixth;  SS.  Bede  and  Boniface  of  the  eighth; 
SS.  Edward  and  Dunstan  of  the  tenth  ;  S.  Alpheg  of  the  elev- 
enth, and  S.  Hugh  of  the  twelfth.  I  find  in  this  catalogue 
of  saints  and  martyrs,  thus  canonized  by  the  English  Prayer- 
Book,  moi-e  than  fifty  names  which  the  American  revisers 
have  thrown  out.*  Let  us  look,  for  a  moment,  at  some  of 
these  Saints.  I  have  no  doubt  their  very  names  are  new  to 
many  Episcopalians,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  they  have  a  place 
in  the  English   Calendar.     St.  Crispin   is  the  patron  Saint 

*  As  a  copy  of  the  English  Prayer-Book  is  not  often  met  with  in 
this  country,  it  may  be  well  to  g'ive  the  names  of  the  Saints  left  out. 
They  are  as  follows  :  Lucian,  Hilary,  Prisca,  P'abian,  Agnes,  Vincent, 
Blasius,  Agatha,  Valentine,  David.  Chad,  Perpetua,  Gregory',  P^d- 
ward,  Benedict,  Richard,  Ambrose,  Alpheg,  George,  Dunstan,  Augus- 
tine, Bede,  Nicomede,  Boniface,  Alban,  Swithun,  Margaret,  Mary 
Magdalene,  Anne,  Lammas,  Laui-euce,  Augustine,  (of  Hi])j)o, )  Giles, 
Lambert,  Gj-prian,  Jerome,  Remegius,  Faith,  Denys,  Etheldreda,  (,'ris- 
pin,  Leonard,  Martin,  Britius,  Machutus,  Hugh,  Edmund,  Cecilia, 
Clement.  Catharine,  Nicolas.  Lucy  and  Sylvester. 

10* 


108  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

of  that  useful  class  of  men  who  make  our  shoes.  St.  Beue- 
diet  is  the  father  of  the  monastic  institutions,  and  St.  Bri- 
tius  too,  was  a  monk.  St.  Gregory  was  a  Pope,  and  a  stre- 
nuous asserter  too,  of  all  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the 
Holy  See.  St.  Augustine  was  the  Missionary  Bishop  whom 
that  same  Pope  Gregory  sent  over  to  convert  the  English, 
and  who,  acting  by  his  authority,  founded  the  see  of  Canter- 
bury. Of  Bede,  Boniface,  Dunstan,  Alpheg  and  Hugh,  I 
shall  only  remark,  that  the}^  flourished  in  what  are  called  the 
"dark  ages,"  when  Popery  was  everywhere  rampant,  and 
were  among  its  most  zealous  advocates  and  propagators. 
Indeed,  most  of  the  Saints  in  this  Calendar,  lived  long  since 
the  period  which  is  assigned  by  Protestants  for  the  rise  of 
Popery;  and  like  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world,  were 
thorough-going  papists.  In  the  Book  of  Homilies,  composed 
by  Cranmer  and  other  founders  of  Anglicanism,  and  ap- 
pointed to  be  read  in  churches  under  Edward  VI.  and  I]liza- 
beth,  it  is  asserted  that  "  whole  Christendom,"  "  clergy  and 
laity,  men,  women,  and  children,"  had  been  "drowned  in 
aboniinable  idolatry"  for  the  "  space  of  eight  hundred  years 
and  more."  As  these  Homilies  were  set  forth  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  sixteenth  century,  subtract  "  eight  hundred  years," 
and  we  get  back  to  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  since 
which  time  all  the  Christian  world  had  been  drowned  in 
idolatry.  And  yet  among  the  Saints  in  the  English  Calen- 
dar, we  find  at  least  four  who  lived  long  after  the  universal 
drowning  is  said  to  have  taken  place,  viz :  Edward  and 
Dunstan  of  the  tenth  century,  Alpheg  of  the  eleventh,  and 
Hugh  of  the  twelfth  !  Here  is  a  most  palpable  self-contradic- 
tion which  I  leave  for  the  defenders  of  ' '  Mother  Church  of 
England"  to  explain  if  they  can.  If  the  -whole  of  Christen- 
dom was  drowned  in  idolatry,  where  were  these  four  Saints 
found  ?  Amid  the  general  deluge,  involving  every  man,  wo- 
man and  child,  how  did  these  four  persons  manage  not  only 
to  live  a  Christian  life,  but  to  attain  such  a  degree  of  piety 
and  holiness,  as  to  entitle  them  to  a  place  in  the  ecclesias- 
tical Calendar  ?  But  this  is  one  of  the  many  inconsisten- 
cies and  absurdities  which  Cranmer  and  his  crew  have  entailed 
upon  their  followers  ;  but  which  the  latter  are  heartily  asham- 
ed of,  and  of  which  they  would  gladly  rid  themselves  if  they 
could. 

Among  the  festivals  in  the  English  Calendar,  I  have  al- 
ready mentioned  that  of  the    "Conception    of   the  Virgin 


LETTER    IV.  109 

Mary."  This  festival  was  not  instituted  until  a  late  period 
of  the  Church,  and  in  the  West  was  not  observed  until  about 
the  tenth  century,  and  in  England  not  until  after  that  age. 
It  may  therefore  be  said  to  have  sprung  up,  like  some  of  the 
saints  in  the  English  Calendar,  in  the  "dark  ages  of  Popery," 
to  make  use  of  a  fiivorite  phrase  of  certain  Protestant  writers. 
This  festival  is  set  down  in  the  Prayer-Book  for  December 
8th,  and  is  nothing  less  than  the  "Immaculate  Conception" 
recently  proclaimed  as  a  dogma  by  the  Holy  See,  and  cele- 
brated by  the  Catholics  througout  the  world,  on  that  day. 
One  of  the  strongest  arguments  used  by  Catholic  theologi- 
ans, in  support  of  that  dogma,  is  the  fact,  that  it  is  honored 
as  a  festival  by  the  Church.  They  argue  that  what  the 
Church  celebrates  in  her  holy  rites,  must  necessarily  be  holy, 
and  consequently,  that  the  Conception  of  the  Virgin,  which 
is  so  honored,  must  be  holy  or  immaculate.  No  doubt  many 
Episcopalians  who  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  this 
doctrine  as  something  new  and  strange,  will  be  quite  sur- 
prised to  find  it  in  their  own  Prayer-Book,  or  at  least  in  that 
of  their  "Mother  Church"  of  England,  and  only  recently 
expunged  from  their  own.  They  must  be  driven  to  the  con- 
clusion, either  that  these  things  are  right,  or  that  the  Prayer- 
Book  sadly  needs  yet  another  revision. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  all  the  saints  and  festivals 
in  the  English  Calendar,  arc  of  a  date  prior  to  the  schism  of 
Henry  VIII.  except  two, — one  saint  and  one  festival.  Al- 
though three  centuries  have  elapsed  since  that  direful  event, 
England  has  been  able  to  find  for  her  Calendar  but  a  solitary 
saint  in  all  that  time  !  This  implies  a  sad  dearth  of  sanctity. 
She  found  at  least  four,  while  "  Christendom  was  drowned 
in  abominable  idolatry."  But  these  were  Popish  times. 
And  some  how  or  other  Popery  and  Saints  go  together. 
Suppress  the  former,  and  you  instantly  stop  the  supply  of 
the  latter.  This  is  clear,  from  the  Prayer-Book.  But  who 
is  that  solitary  saint,  which  England  has  produced  since  the 
schism  ?  Many  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that  it  is  no  other 
than  his  Majesty,  King  Charles  I.,  who  is  honored  with  the 
title  of  "  Martyr!"  This  is  the  only  individual  that  Angli- 
canism has  been  able  to  produce  that  is  deemed  worthy  to 
occupy  a  place  among  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  Catholic 
times.  And  the  only  festival  that  she  has  placed  in  the  Ca- 
lendar of  her  own  invention,  is  that  of  the   "  Restoration  of 


110  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

King  Charles  II.*  It  must  be  admitted  that  Anglicanism 
is  faithfnl  and  true  to  the  royal  line.  It  honors  the  king 
very  devoutly.  And  this  is  surely  appropriate,  when  we 
consider  that  it  owes  its  very  existence  to  the  king,  and  that 
the  sovereign  for  the  time  being  is  its  supreme  head  on  earth, 
although  sometimes  happening  to  be  a  woman. 

After  the  Calendar,  we  come  to  "Tables  and  Rules  for 
the  Movable  and  Immovable  Feasts,  together  with  the  Days 
of  Fasting  and  Abstinence  throughout  the  whole  year." 
The  distinction  here  made  between  "  Movable"  and  "Im- 
movable," seems  to  be  altogether  suj^erfluous  :  for  in  prac- 
tice they  are  nearly  all  reduced  to  one  class,  the  morahh,  or 
removahle.  Among  these  "  Tables,"  is  "A  Table  of  Feasts 
to  be  observed  in  this  Church  throughout  the  year."  Under 
this  head,  amoiig  the  festivals  enumerated,  I  find  the  "  Cir- 
cumcision of  our  Lord,"  the  "  Conversion  of  St.  Paul,"  the 
Purification  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  the  "Annunciation  of 
the  "  Blessed  Virgin,"  "  St.  Michael  and  all  Angels,"  &c., 
&c.  Now  my  friend,  I  need  not  tell  you  that  although  these 
festivals  are  thus  presented  in  your  Prayer-Book,  "to  be 
observed  throughout  the  year,"  they  are  not  observed  in  any 
of  your  congregations,  except  a  few  of  the  class  above  men- 
tioned !  Is  not  this  most  extraordinary  ?  Does  it  not  show 
how  little  authority  your  Church  has  over  her  members,  both 
clergy  and  laity  '?  And  why  are  they  not  observed  'I  It  is 
because  they  savor  of  Catholicism.  Here  again  you  depart 
from  your  own  Praj-er-Book.  You  find  that  book  still  too 
"  Popish,"  although  revised  by  your  Church  only  fifty  years 
ago!  Where  and  when  will  this  "reforming,"  or  rather 
denuding  process,  end?  Can  you  tell  me  ?  Every  genera- 
tion recedes  further  and  further  from  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  from  the  standards  of  their  Protestant  fothers,  and 
either  alter  these  standards  to  suit  their  altered  views,  or  treat 
them  as  a  dead  letter.  I  beg  you  to  consider  where  will  this 
degenerating  practice  end. 

Among  these  tables,  I  find  also  a  "  Table  of  Fasts,"  and 
under  this  head,  I  find  laid  down  Asfc  Wednesday  and  Good 
Friday.  Besides  these,  I  find  "other  days  of  fasting,  on 
which  the  Church  requires  such  a  measure  of  abstinence  as 
is  more  especially  suited  to  extraordinary  acts  and  exercises 

*The  festival  of  King  Charles,  Martyr,  is  set  down  for  Jan.  3.  The 
Restoration  of  Charles  II.  is  celebrated  on  the  29th  of  May. 


LETTER     IV.  Ill 

of  devotion,"  as  the  forty  days  of  Lent,  the  Ember  Days, 
the  Kogation  Daj-s,  and  all  the  Fridays  iu  the  year.  I  need 
not  remind  you,  my  friend,  that  although  the  "  Church  re- 
quires" all  this,  yet  very  few,  either  of  clergy  or  laity  pre- 
tend to  comply  with  it.  To  nineteen-twentieths  of  your 
members  it  is  all  a  dead  letter.  Many  of  them  have  never 
even  heard  of  Rogation  Days  and  Ember  Days,  much  less 
observing  them  as  a  season  of  fasting  I  Here  again  your 
system  bears  testimony  to  the  Catholic  Church,  which  first 
prescribed  these  seasons,  while  in  practice  you  condemn, 
them,  and  disobey  your  own  Church. 

The  next  four  or  five  pages  are  filled  with  tables  for  the 
computation  of  Easter,  and  other  holy  days,  and  contain 
nothing  requiring  notice.  But  I  will  take  this  occasion  to 
observe,  that  this  system  of  Feasts  and  Fasts,  Saints'  Days 
and  Holy  Days,  &c.,  &c.,  did  not  originate  with  the  authors 
of  your  Prayer-Book.  It  originated  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
from  which  your  founders  borrowed  it.  Your  writers  and 
preachers  are  accustomed  to  bestow  much  praise  upon  this 
system,  the  ecclesiastical  year,  beginning  with  the  season  of 
Advent,  and  bringing  before  the  faithful  as  the  weeks  and 
months  glide  around  the  great  events  in  the  life  of  our  Sa- 
viour, and  the  holy  examples  of  Apostles  and  IMartyrs. 
They  very  justly  commend  it  as  mo.st  beautiful  and  edifying. 
But  they  do  not  tell  you  that  it  is  derived  from  the  Catholic 
Church — that  she  devised  it  all  for  her  children  long  before 
Henry  VIII.,  or  Thomas  Cranmer,  or  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  or  Anglicanism  had  a  being.  Let  them  praise  it, 
let  them  enjoy  it ;  we  are  glad  that  they  have  that  much  of 
Catholicity.  But  let  them  not  forget  its  source.  And  let 
them  know  that  she  has  other  treasures  yet,  of  which  they 
may  become  partakers,  by  returning  to  her  maternal  bosom. 
Not  a  few  of  them  have  been  attracted  to  the  Episcopal  Com- 
munion from  other  sects,  by  the  excellencies  of  this  very 
system.  Let  us  hope  that  they  may  be  led  (as  indeed  some 
have  been  already)  to  advance  on  to  the  fountain  head,  and 
partake  of  the  limpid  stream  as  it  first  gushes  forth,  pure, 
refreshing  and  life-giving. 

Before  I  proceed  to  examine  the  "  Morning  Prayer,"  let 
me  notice  an  omission  which  occurs  here.  In  the  English 
Prayer-Book,  I  find  two  directions  or  rubrics,  before  the 
Morning  Prayer,  which  the  American  revisers  have  left  out. 
The  first  of  these  prescribes  the  part  of  the  Church  in  which 


112  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  Morning  Prayer  shall  be  used.  The  second,  orders  that 
"such  ornaments"  shall  be  used  as  were  in  use  by  the 
"authority  of  Parliament"  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. 
This  order  may  be  of  no  service  to  American  Episcopalians, 
but  it  is  of  some  service  in  the  work  I  have  on  hand.  It  is 
a  standing  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  Prayer-Book  itself, 
as  to  the  unlimited  ' '  authority  of  Parliament"  over  the 
Prayer-Book,  and  over  the  Anglican  establishment.  It  con- 
firms what  I  have  said,  that  Parliament  did  everything; 
made  the  Church,  made  the  Prayer-Book,  made  the  Bishops, 
made  the  people  submit  to  it ;  in  short,  did  everything  it  re- 
quired.    What  a  grand  thing  a  Parliament  must  be  ! 

The  minister  is  required  to  begin  the  service  of  morning 
prayer,  by  reading  one  or  more  sentences  of  Scripture,  for 
which  purjiose  about  a  dozen  are  provided.  After  this  he  is 
to  read  a  sort  of  an  exhortation  to  the  congregation,  urging 
them  to  confess  their  sins  with  a  ' '  penitent  and  obedient 
heart,"  and  then  to  rejieat  after  him,  aloud,  all  kneeling,  a 
form  of  general  confession,"  in  which  they  all  say,  "We 
have  erred  and  strayed  fi-om  thy  ways  like  lost  sheep,"  "  We 
have  left  undone  those  things  which  we  ought  to  have  done, 
and  we  have  done  those  things  which  we  ought  not  to  have 
done,"  and  other  like  phrases.  All  of  this  is  vague,  and 
"general"  enough,  siu-ely.  The  greatest  sinner,  and  the 
least  sinner,  the  most  fastidious  and  the  most  reckless,  can 
all  take  up  these  words  without  hesitation.  I  have  nothing 
to  say  against  this,  in  itself  considered.  It  is  well  that  men 
should  acknowledge  themselves  sinners,  and  call  upon  God 
for  mercy  even  in  a  general  way.  But  the  question  arises, 
is  that  enough '?  Is  that  coming  up  to  the  requirements  of 
God's  law,  the  necessities  of  the  case, — and  does  it  accord 
with  the  example  of  God's  Saints  ?  As  an  acknowledgment 
of  a  most  important  truth,  it  is  all  very  well,  but  it  should 
not  end  there.  When  men  sin,  they  sin  by  particular  sins, 
some  in  this  way,  others  in  that — some  lightly,  others  gre- 
viously.  And  I  cannot  believe  that  God  himself  can  be  satis- 
fied with  a  ' '  general  confession,"  which  fails  to  make  an  hum- 
ble and  specific  mention  and  acknowledgment  of  these  parti- 
cular sins  by  which  His  law  has  been  broken,  and  His  name 
dishonored.  An  earthly  father  would  not  be  satisfied  with 
such  a  "  general  confession"  on  the  part  of  a  child  that  had 
been  guilty  of  some  act  of  disobedience.  How  much  less 
can  God  be  satisfied  therewith !     The  idea  of  introducing: 


LETTKR     IV.  113 

this  feature  iuto  the  service,  appears  to  have  been  borrowed 
from  a  usage  in  the  early  Church,  when  Christians  who  had 
fallen  into  any  scandalous  sins,  came  forward  and  made  a 
public  confession  of  those  sins.  But  it  is  a  poor  imitation. 
The  primitive  Christian  did  not  indulge  in  general  phrases — 
he  acknowledged  in  plain  and  definite  terms  the  particular 
sins  Avhich  he  had  committed,  and  received  at  once  a  suitable 
penance  to  be  performed.  But  this  public  confession  Avas 
afterwards  disused,  and  private  confession  alone  retained. 

A  ''  general  confession"  such  as  we  have  here,  is  entirely 
inadequate  to  the  occasion,  as  it  is  made  with  a  view  to 
"absolution."  It  is  followed  bj-  the  following  rubric: 
'  •  The  declaration  of  Absolution  or  Remission  of  Sins ;  to 
be  made  by  the  Priest  alone,  standing, — the  people  still 
kneeling."  This  rubric  has  been  altered  in  the  American 
Pi'ayer-Book,  by  the  insertion  of  the  word  "declaration." 
In  the  Engli.sh,  it  reads:  "  The  Absolution  or  Bemission," 
&c.  This  was  entirely  too  strong  for  the  American  i-e- 
visers — they  have  softened  it  considerably  by  the  insertion 
of  "  declaration." 

You  see,  then,  that  the  authors  of  the  Prayer-Book  were 
unwilling  to  throw  aside  the  ancient  practice  of  Confession, 
entirely — they  felt  bound  to  retain  it  in  some  sense,  although, 
as  I  have  shewn,  it  is  rendered  almost  nugatoi-y  by  its 
"general"  character.  But  they  retained  not  only  Confes- 
sion, but  also  priestly  absolution.  The  Confessien  is  made 
with  a  view  to  absolution,  and  as  soon  as  it  is  made,  the 
"priest"  stands  up  and  pronounces  absolution,  according  to 
a  prescribed  form,  Avhich  I  deem  it  best  to  transcribe  in  full, 
as  follows : 

"  Almighty  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  desireth  not  the  death  of  a  sinner,  but  rather  that  he 
may  turn  from  his  wickedness  and  live  :  and  hath  given 
power  and  commandment  to  his  ministers  to  declare  and 
pronounce  to  his  people,  being  penitent,  the  Absolution  and 
Remission  of  their  sins — he  pardoneth  and  absolveth  all 
those  who  truly  repent  and  unfeignedly  believe  his  holy  Gos- 
pel. Wherefore,  let  us  beseech  him  to  grant  us  true  repen- 
tance, and  his  Holy  Spirit,  that  those  things  may  please  him 
which  Ave  do  at  present,  and  that  the  rest  of  our  life  hereaf- 
ter may  be  pure  and  holy,  so  that  at  the  last  we  may  come  to 
his  eternal  joy,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 


114  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

In  this  form,  it  is  asserted  in  the  most  positive  manner, 
that  the  minister  is  endowed  with  power  or  authority  to  de- 
clare forgiveness  of  sins — that  Ahnighty  God  hath  given 
him  ' '  power  and  commandment  to  declare  and  pronounce 
to  his  people,  being  penitent,  the  Absolution  and  Kemission 
of  their  sins."  Here  is  something  much  like  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  Absolution, — the  "  power"  exercised  by  the  Ca- 
tholic priest  in  the  confessional.  The  Catholic  priest  simply 
pronounces  absolution  in  the  name,  and  by  the  authority  of 
Almighty  God  ;  and  that  only  upon  those  who  are  ' '  penitent." 
This  you  may  learn  from  any  Catholic  treatise  on  the  sub- 
ject. Repentance  or  contrition  is  always  a  condition  uj)on 
which  absolution  is  granted.  And  this  contrition  implies 
something  more  than  a  mere  sorrow  for  the  past — it  includes 
restitution  when  injury  has  been  done,  and  a  pm-pose  of 
amendment  in  future.  This  shews  that  the  idea  prevalent 
among  Protestants,  in  regard  to  this  Catholic  practice,  is 
entirely  erroneous.  Many  suppose  that  a  man  can  commit 
the  most  grevious  sins,  and  then  get  absolution  instantly, 
without  repentance  or  purpose  of  amendment,  or  any  such 
condition.  All  this  is  a  gross  mistake.  All  the  priests  and 
bishops  in  the  world,  with  the  Pope  added  to  them,  cannot 
absolve  a  man  without  contrition ;  that  is,  sorrow  for  the 
sin,  restitution,  purpose  of  amendment;  and  besides  this,  he 
has  a  penance  to  perform  suitable  to  his  sins.  All  these 
safeguards,  the  Catholic  Church  has  thrown  around  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  great  power,  to  prevent  abuses.  So  that  con- 
fession, so  far  from  encouraging  sin,  as  some  suppose,  is  the 
greatest  check  upon  it — for  besides  all  these  conditions,  a  man 
is  naturally  deterred  from  doing  what  he  must  afterwards 
confess;  not  in  a  "  general"  way,  but  the  specific  act,  with 
its  modifying  circumstances.  Let  this  system  be  compared 
with  the  Protestant  mode  of  obtaining  absolution,  and  see 
which  is  best  calculated  to  prevent  sin.  What  is  the  Pro- 
testant mode?  With  the  Episcopalian,  supposing  he  con- 
forms truly  to  the  Prayer-Book_,  it  is  merely  by  making  a 
' '  general  confession"  of  his  sins  in  company  with  the  whole 
congregation,  at  the  same  time  "being  penitent."  What 
can  be  easier  than  this?  But  practically,  he  is  not  required 
to  do  this.  It  is  the  general  belief  of  Protestants,  shared  in 
by  most  Episcopalians,  that  any  man  can  obtain  forgiveness 
of  his  sins  simply  by  calling  upon  God  for  mercy  in  his  pri- 
vate apartment  with  faith  in  Christ,  and  entirely  without  the 


LETTKR     IV.  115 

intervention  of  minister  or  cburch.  Certainly  this  mode  is 
€asy  enough  to  satisfy  the  most  lax  and  the  most  indolent. 
It  must  be  apparent,  at  a  glance,  that  both  of  these  modes 
are  not  only  much  easier  than  the  Catholic,  but  much  less 
calculated  to  restrain  the  commission  of  sin.  For  supposing 
that  they  both  imply  sorrow  for  sin,  yet  they  lack  the  conser- 
vative and  restraining  influence  of  a  particular  confession  to 
the  minister,  purpose  of  amendment,  restitution,  and  imposed 
penance.  I  might  add  that  these  modes  are  both  liable  to 
.serious  objection,  because  exposing  the  sinner  to  the  evils  of 
error,  presumption  and  despair.  He  is,  in  this  system,  his 
own  judge,  which  is  at  once  a  fatal  defect,  vitiating  the  whole 
system.  Every  one  acquainted  with  human  nature,  knows 
how  impossible  it  is  to  judge  impartially  and  correctly  in 
any  matter  involving  one's  own  interests,  feelings  and  pas- 
sions. And  yet,  here  a  man  has  to  judge,  first,  whether  he 
has  sinned  at  all ;  secondfy,  to  what  extent ;  thirdly,  whe- 
ther he  has  the  requisite  sorrow ;  and  fourthly,  whether  he 
has  genuine  faith.  Under  the  operation  of  this  sj'Stem, 
religion  must  be  practically  annihilated.  A  man  inclined  to 
any  particular  pleasure,  can  easily  persuade  himself,  that  it 
is  either  no  sin  at  all,  or  at  most  a  very  trifling  one,  however 
pernicious  and  grievous  it  may  be.  Another  man  under  the 
influence  of  erroneous  impressions,  may  imagine  a  certain 
course  of  conduct  to  be  correct,  or  even  his  duty,  when  it 
is  C|uite  the  reverse.  Another  may  flattei;  himself  that  he  is 
"  penitent"  when  he  is  entirely  destitute  of  every  feeling  of 
the  sort.  Still  another,  ardent  and  enthusiastic  in  his  tem- 
perament, may  fancy  that  he  believes  in  Christ,  and  that  that 
is  enough,  still  going  on  in  his  sins,  and  presumptuously  be- 
lieving himself  "justified,"  and  "  one  of  the  elect" — while 
a  person  of  the  opposite  temperament,  conceives  himself  in- 
capable of  "believing"  in  order  to  "justification,"  and  is 
overwhelmed  with  anguish  and  despair.  All  this  shews  that 
in  the  great  matter  of  practical  religion,  man  needs  a  coun- 
sellor and  director,  such  as  is  found  in  the  Catholic  pastor, 
who,  by  a  long  course  of  study  and  training,  is  prepared  to 
instriict  and  advise  the  members  of  his  flock,  according  as 
each  one  may  require.  I  have  already  called  your  attention 
to  the  fact,  that  the  language  of  the  Prayer-Book  above 
quoted,  fully  asserts  the  doctrine  of  a  declaratory  absolution  ; 
and  so  far,  bears  testimony  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
But,  it  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  while  the  power  is  asserted 
11 


116  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN, 

in  the  prescribed  form,  yet,  iu  fact,  there  is  no  actual  exer- 
cise of  this  power,  as  you  will  perceive  by  reading  it  over 
attentively.  The  minister  asserts  that  God  has  given  this 
"power  and  commandment  to  his  ministers."  But  what 
then  ?  You  would  expect  him,  after  this  declaration^  to  pro- 
ceed to  exercise  the  said  power  upon  the  people  kneeling 
before  hirh,  and  who  have  just  made  their  "  general  confes- 
sion." You  would  expect  him  to  say  something  like  this: 
"  Thei'efore,  I  absolve  you  from  all  your  sins."  But  he 
says  nothing  of  the  sort.  Instead  of  so  doing,  he  merely 
tells  them  that  God  ' '  pardoneth  and  absolveth  all  them  that 
truly  repent,"  and  exhorts  them  to  call  upon  Him  for  "  true 
repentance,"  &c., — all  of  which,  any  ordinary  layman  might 
tell  them  just  as  well.  It  is  plain,  then,  that  while  the 
power  to  absolve  is  claimed  for  the  ministers  of  God,  yet  by 
the  words  used,  no  such  power  is  actually  exercised.  This 
-is  a  most  extraordinary  fact — although  I  suppose  most  Epis- 
copalians do  not  regard  it  as  a  serious  defect,  for  it  is  well 
known  that  but  few  of  them  believe  in  priestly  absolution, 
although  every  time  they  join  in  their  church  service,  that 
power  is  expressly  asserted ;  but  witli  many,  these  words, 
like  other  portions  of  the  service,  are  mere  forms  of  expres- 
sion, to  which  their  ears  have  become  familiar,  but  which 
convey  no  particular  meaning  to  their  understanding  and 
consciences.  And  one  object  which  I  propose  in  this  letter, 
is  to  ask  their  attention  to  the  true  spirit  and  meaning  of 
these  forms,  that  they  may  comprehend  them  in  all  their 
import,  and  consider  whether  they  hold  them  in  their  natural 
and  genuine  sense.  But  supposing  the  pious  Episcopalian 
to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  priestly  absolution,  as  asserted 
in  this  form.  What  then?  He  goes  to  church,  burdened 
with  a  sense  of  his  many  sins,  committed  during  the  week — 
being  penitent,  he  unites  with  others  in  making  the  '  'general 
confession"  prescribed.  The  clergyman  rises  and  tells  him 
that  God  has  given  this  power  to  his  ministers  ;  but  instead 
of  exercising  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  penitent  before 
him,  he  only  adds  that  God  absolveth.  So  the  penitent  does 
not  get  absolution,  but  is  only  tantalized  with  an  abstract 
declaration  of  the  doctrine.  It  thus  becomes  an  empty  cere- 
mony and  a  mere  mockery. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said  that  I  do  not  correctly  represent 
the  meaning  of  this  form  ;  that  it  only  means  that  the  minister 
"pronounces"  absolution,  while  God  alone  absolves.     But 


LETTER     lY.  117 

this  is  a  very  nice  distinction,  to  say  the  least.  To  absolve, 
and  to  pronounce  absolution,  are  practically  the  same  thing. 
The  only  foundation  that  can  be  reasonably  alleged  for  such 
a  distinction,  is  the  fact  that  this  power  comes  from  God,  and 
in  a  primary  sense  is  exercised  by  Him,  and  by  the  minister 
only  in  a  secondary  sense ;  that  is,  as  His  agent.  All  this 
the  Catholic  admits — but  this  does  not  conflict 'with  the 
doctrine  that  the  priest  ab.solves,  since  he  exercises  this 
power  only  as  the  representative  of  Grod,  and  by  His  autho- 
rity. In  the  highest  and  absolute  sense,  God  alone  absolves. 
But  this  power  he  has  given  to  His  ministers,  as  your 
Prayer-Book  declares,  to  be  exercised  according  to  certain 
rules  and  conditions ;  and  when  so  exercised,  it  is  ratified  by 
Him.  It  is  a  delegated  power,  and  as  such,  it  is  necessarily 
subject  to  the  approval  of  Him  from  whom  it  emanates.  No 
Catholic  asserts  that  it  is  exercised  in  any  other  way.  And 
this  is  all  that  can  be  implied  in  the  distinction  between  pro- 
nouncing absolution  and  giving  absolution.  Practically,  one 
means  as  much  as  the  other,  if  it  means  anything.  When  a 
minister  pronounces  absolution,  he  either  gives  absolution, 
that  is,  he  absolves,  or  he  does  not.  If  he  absolves,  the 
point  is  proved.  If  he  does  not  absolve,  what  does  he  do  ? 
He  does  nothing,  or  worse  than  nothing — he  is  guilty  of  a 
solemn  falsehood  and  mockery.  Why  "pronounce"  absolu- 
tion, if  no  absolution  is  conveyed?  Do  you  say  it  is  an 
authoritative  or  official  pronunciation  ?  I  answer,  as  before, 
it  either  conveys  ab.solution,  or  it  d©es  not.  If  it  does,  it 
amounts  to  the  Catholic  doctrine — if  it  does  not,  it  is  nothing 
but  a  solemn  mockery.  It  may  be  added,  that  the  words 
of  the  form  imply  a  gift  of  authority.  It  is  then  said,  that 
' '  Almighty  God  hath  given  power  and  commandment  to  His 
ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce  to  his  people,  being- 
penitent,  the  absolution  and  remission  of  their  sins."  God 
hath  given  them  power  for  this  very  purpose.  This  power 
must  imply  authority  to  absolve,  or  it  means  nothing  at  all : 
for,  upon  the  theory  that  God  alone  absolves,  without  the 
agency  of  a  minister,  "  all  those  who  truly  repent,"  there  is 
no  need  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  minister,  in  the  pre- 
mises. Any  man  may  say  to  another,  "  if  you  repent,  you 
are  absolved." 

But  the  question  still  remains :  why  does  not  the  minister, 
after  the  penitent  has  made  this  "  general  confession,"  "  de- 
clare and  pronounce"  him  absolved,  accordingto  the  very  words 


118  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

tlie  form  ?  I  confess  this  is  a  mystery,  and  I  can  only  indulge 
in  conjectures  upon  the  subject.  Perhaps  it  was  because  the 
authors  of  the  book,  while  holding,  in  a  general  sense,  to 
the  doctrine  of  priestly  absolution,  yet  were  timid  in  regard 
to  its  exercise.  Or,  it  may  have  been  that  while  they  claimed 
the  power  for  the  minister,  they  felt  the  absurdity  of  exer- 
cising it,  upon  an  entire  congregation,  indiscriminately,  and 
hence  abstained  from  so  doing.  We  are  at  a  loss  which  of 
these  explanations  to  adopt,  and  leave  the  point  to  those  who 
have  a  personal  interest  in  the  matter. 

The  American  revisers  have  inserted,  in  addition  to  the 
form  of  absolution  above  given,  a  shorter  one  to  be  used 
instead  of  it,  at  the  option  of  the  minister.  In  this  form, 
the  minister  after  declaring  that  God  has  promised  forgive- 
ness to  the  penitent,  proceeds  to  say,  (Grod)  "  have  mercy 
upon  you,  pardon  and  deliver  you  from  all  your  sins,"  &c. 
This  is  the  form  which  is  generally  used.  Compared  with 
the  other  form,  it  certainly  exhibits  a  great  "falling  oif," 
and  shows  that  the  American  revisers  thought  there  was 
room  here  for  a  little  more  "reformation."  It  is  nothing 
more  than  an  invocation  of  God's  mercy  in  behalf  of  the 
people,  implying  no  peculiar  authority  or  power.  We  won- 
der they  did  not  altogether  omit  the  old  form  of  absolution  ; 
but  there  were  some  conservative  men  among  them  who 
resisted  all  doctrinal  changes,  and  this  new  form  was  proba- 
bly inserted,  as  a  sort  of  compromise — by  this  means,  the 
Low  Churchman  was  supplied  with  a  form  to  his  liking,  as 
well  as  the  High  Churchman.  It  is  well  that  the  English 
form  has  been  preserved,  otherwise  the  American  Prayer- 
Book  would  not  have  furnished  such  testimony  in  hehalf 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  of  priestly  absolution. 

While  I  have  this  subject  before  me,  it  may  be  well  to 
cite  another  part  of  the  English  Prayer-Book,  in  which  this 
doctrine  is  set  forth  in  a  still  clearer  manner.  In  the  service 
for  the  "  Visitation  of  the  Sick,"  I  find  the  following  rubric 
and  form  :  ' '  Then  shall  the  sick  person  be  moved  to  make  a 
special  confession  of  his  sins,  if  he  feel  his  conscience  trou- 
bled with  any  weighty  matter.  After  which  confession,  the 
priest  shall  absolve  him,  (if  he  humbly  and  heartily  desires 
it,)  after  this  sort: 

"Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  left  power  to  His 
Church  to  absolve  all  sinners  who  truly  repent  and  believe 
in  Him,  of  His  great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine  oifences,  and 


LETTER     IV.  119 

by  His  authority  coniinitted  to  me,  I  absolve  thee  from  all 
thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  tlie  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  TToly  Ghost.     Amen." 

Here  you  have  "  auricular  confession,"  private  and  spe- 
cial, as  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Here  you  have  the  doctrine 
of  priestly  and  sacramental  absolution,  clearly  and  positively 
asserted  ;  and  not  merely  asserted,  but  full  provision  made 
for  its  actual  exercise.  Here  is  language  which  no  man  can 
honestly  evade  or  explain  away.  Here  is  language  which 
fully  equals  that  of  the  Catholic  Church  upon  the  subject,  in 
any  of  her  liturgical  services,  or  dogmatical  decrees.  But 
you  will  search  the  American  Prayer-Book  in  vain  for  this 
important  portion  of  the  "  Visitation  of  the  Sick."  It  has 
been  altogether  expunged  and  suppressed  ;  not  even  a  shadow 
or  intimation  being  left  to  show  that  it  was  once  there!  Is 
not  this  a  most  extraordinary  omission?  If  this  doctrine  be 
true,  and  it  is  asserted  in  your  Praycr-Book,  it  is  one  of  the 
greatest  practical  importance.  And  yet  you  have  thrown  it 
out  at  the  very  time  when  it  is  most  needed  ;  thus  allowing 
the  poor  dying  sinner,  to  go  to  his  last  account  with  all  his 
sins  upon  his  conscience  ! 

Again  :  in  the  Communion  Service  of  the  English  Prayer- 
Book,  the  minister,  after  saying  to  those  present,  that  if 
there  be  any  of  you,  who,  by  this  means,  (his  own  examina- 
tion, &c.,)  cannot  quiet  his  own  conscience  herein,  but  re- 
quest further  comfort,  or  counsel,  let  him  come  to  mo  or 
some  other  discreet  and  learned  minister  of  God's  word,  and 
open  his  grief;  that  by  the  ministry  of  God's  holy  word,  he 
may  receive  the  benefit  of  absolution,  together  with  ghostly 
council  and  advice  to  the  quieting  of  his  conscience,  and 
avoiding  all  scruple  and  doubtfulness." 

Here  also  are  recommended  auricular  confession  and  priest- 
ly absolution  for  the  quieting  of  the  conscience,  and  as 
a  preparation  for  holy  communion.  This  is  just  the  Catholic 
practice;  only  with  the  Catholic,  the  rule  is  universal,  and 
not  merely  special.  For  greater  safety  and  peace,  all  good 
Catholics  resort  to  some  "discreet  and  learned"  priest  to 
obtain  "ghostly  counsel"  and  "absolution,"  before  they 
venture  to  receive  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ.  Thus  does  the  Catholic  only  carry  out,  in  the 
most  effectual  manner,  the  recommendation  of  the  English 
Prayer-Book.      But  in   regard    to   this  recommendation,   I 

11* 


120  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

have  to  note  another  exercise  of  the  pruning-knife  of  the 
American  revisers.  Although  they  have  retained  the  general 
recommendation  to  resort  to  the  minister  for  comisel,  yet 
they  have  wholly  omitted  the  words,  "  receive  the  benefit  of 
absolution."  The  minister  is  consequently  presented  as  a 
mere  adviser,  no  allusion  even  being  made  to  the  power  of 
absolution !  It  seems  as  if  they  were  determined  that  the 
ministers  of  their  communion  should  never  undertake  to 
exercise  the  power  of  absolving  sins,  although  they  were 
compelled  to  retain  a  recognition  of  that  power. 

These  two  omissions  clearly  exhibit  the  mind  and  theo- 
logical tendency  of  the  American  revisers.  But,  although 
disliking  this  doctrine,  and  desiring  its  suppression,  yet  they 
could  not  succeed  in  rooting  it  out  altogether.  I  have  shewn 
you  that  they  were  compelled  to  retain  a  recognition  of  it  in 
the  old  form  of  absolution,  contained  in  the  Morning  and 
Evening  Prayer,  although  they  went  so  far  as  to  insert  a 
substitute  for  it,  to  be  used  at  the  option  of  the  minister. 
But  this  is  not  all ;  the  doctrine  is  clearly  set  forth  in  another 
service,  which  they  durst  not  mutilate.  I  refer  to  the  Ordi- 
nation Service,  called  the  "Form  and  Manner  of  Ordering 
Priests."  If  you  turn  to  it,  you  will  see  that  when  the 
bishop  is  about  to  ordain  a  priest,  he  lays  his  hands  upon  the 
head  of  the  candidate  and  addresses  him  thus : 

' '  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a 
Priest  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by 
the  imposition  of  our  hands  :  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive, 
they  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are 
retained ;  and  be  thou  a  faithful  dispenser  of  the  Word  of 
God  and  of  His  Holy  Sacraments,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Amen." 

Here  you  see  that  when  your  bishop  undertakes  to  ordain 
a  minister,  he  first  bestows  upon  him  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the 
work ;  he  then  confers  upon  him  the  power  of  absolving 
sins — "Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven, 
and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained."  This 
language  is  as  strong  and  decisive  as  language  can  be.  Let 
this  passage  be  connected  with  that  in  the  form  of  absolution 
used  at  Morning  Prayer,  and  every  one  will  be  compelled 
to  admit  that  the  power  of  forgiving  sins  is  still  ascribed 
to  the  clergy  in  your  Prayer-Book,  notwithstanding  the  pro- 
cess of  elimination  which  it  underwent  at  the  hands  of  the 


LETTER     IV.  121 

American  revisers.*  Tlioy  who  consider  themselves  virtu- 
ally one  Church  with  the  Established  Church  of  England, 
should  also  connect  with  tliese  passages  the  form  of  absolu- 
tion which  that  Church  still  uses  in  the  "  Visitation  of  the 
Sick."  But  leaving  that  out  of  consideration  here,  your 
Prayer-Book  is  still  found  to  contain  and  teach  the  doctrine 
of  priestly  absolution  in  all  its  breadth  and  depth,  and  with 
all  its  logical  consequences. 

It  will  be  observed  that  thus  far  I  have  not  spoken  of  the 
practical  belief  of  your  clergy  and  people  upon  this  subject. 
I  have  only  endeavored  to  show  what  is  taught  by  the 
Prayer-Book  ;  and  surely  no  one  will  deny  that  if  its  lan- 
guage is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  its  natural  and  gram- 
matical sense,  the  Prayer-Book  maintains  and  sets  forth  this 
doctrine  in  the  clearest  and  most  solemn  manner.  And  yet, 
strange  to  say,  this  doctrine  is  practically  ignored  among 
you,  although  it  is  so  plainly  affirmed  in  two  of  your  ser- 
vices. Yet  in  none  of  the  services  is  it  actually  put  in  ope- 
ration ;  while  the  formula  prescribed  for  its  exercise  in  the 
"Visitation  of  the  Sick,"  has  been  purposely  omitted. 
Your  bishop  says  to  the  minister,  "  Whose  sins  thou  dost 
forgive,  they  are  forgiven."  The  minister  rises  with  the  air 
of  authority  in  the  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer,  after  the 
General  Confession,  and  solemnly  declares  that  "God  hath 
given  power  and  commandment  to  declare  and  pronounce  to 
his  people,  being  penitent,  the  absolution  and  remission  of 
their  sins."  But  this  is  all  he  can  do.  The  Prayer-Book 
gives  him  no  opportunity  to  exercise  that  great  "power." 
Supposing  him  to  possess  that  power,  this  is  certainly  a  grave 
defect.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  doctrine  is  not  believed  in 
among  your  people.  If  I  were  to  ask  your  members  whether 
your  ministers  have  the  power  to  forgive  sins,  they  would 
answer  in  the  negative  almost  unanimously ;  and  not  only 
so,  they  would  repudiate  the  doctrine  as  odious  and  false,  and 
as  a  corrupt  invention  of  Popery.  And  I  need  not  tell  you 
that  the  same  thing  would  be  done  by  nine-tenths  of  your 


*  This  form  of  Ordination,  like  that  of  Absolution,  was  too  strong 
for  the  American  revisers;  and,  as  in  that  case,  they  inserted  another 
form  under  the  words,  "Or  this,"  in  which  nothing  is  said  al  out/or- 
giving  sins!  Tn  practice,  the  suhstitute  is  generally  used  in  preference 
to  the  orieinal. 


122  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

clergy.*  Yes,  your  very  ministers  would  disclaim  that 
power  if  questioned  upon  the  subject ;  and  if  you  remind 
them  of  the  portions  of  the  Prayer-Book  which  I  have  cited, 
they  will  give  you  long  and  labored  explanations,  the  amount 
of  which  is,  that  all  this  strong  and  solemn  language  ut- 
tered before  God  in  the  sanctuary,  means  nothing  at  all ! 
Thus,  the  very  man  to  whom  the  bishop  has  said — "  Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost  *  *  *  whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven"- — the  very  man  who  rises  in  the  Church  every  Sun- 
day and  solemnly  affirms  that  ' '  God  has  given  to  His  minis- 
ters power  and  commandment  to  declare  and  pronounce  to 
his  people,  being  penitent,  the  absolution  and  remission  of 
their  sins" — I  say  that  very  man,  when  privately  interro- 
gated, will  not  hesitate  to  deny  that  he  possesses  any  such 
power  !  I  forbear  to  comment  upon  this  extraordinary  fact ; 
but  commend  it  to  the  reflection  of  all  sincere  members  of 
your  communion  who  love  honesty  and  consistency. 

I  have  now  shewn  you  that  the  practice  of  auricular  con- 
fession and  the  doctrine  of  priestly  or  sacramental  absolution, 
are  both  plainly  and  undeniably  set  forth  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  as  now  used  in  England.  And  if,  my 
friend,  you  acknowledge  the  Anglican  Church  to  be  your 
mother  Church,  and  a  true  and  orthodox  Church,  how  can 
you  consistently  reject  these  things,  and  with  what  propriety 
can  you  censure  the  Catholic  for  practising  them  ? 

But  I  have  also  shewn  you  that  although  the  practice  of 
auricular  confession  has  been  suppressed  by  the  revisers  of 
the  American  Prayer  Book,  yet  the  doctrine  of  priestly  ab- 
solution is  still  retained  therein  ;  and  consequently,  as  an 
honest  and  consistent  Episcopalian,  you  ai'e  bound  to  believe 
it.  When  your  bishop  places  his  hands  upon  a  man  and  ut- 
ters these  solemn  words — "Receive  the  Holy  Ghost :  whose 
sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven" — you  must  either 
believe  that  power  of  forgiving  sins  is  then  conferred  upon 
him,  or  you  must  believe  your  bishop  "  lies  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  is  guilty  of  awful  mockery  and  blasphemy. 
You  will  hardly  accept  the  latter  alternative.  But  if  you 
believe  in  priestly  absolution,  you  must  also  believe  in  auric- 

*■  I  say  nine-tcfith-s ;  for  there  is  a  small  class  of  Episcopalians,  cler- 
gymen and  laymen,  who  endeavor  to  follow  the  Prayer-Book  with 
strictness,  and  who  profess  to  believe  in  this  doctrine.  Their  attempt 
at  consistency  is  commendable,  but  they  are  in  a  false  position  eccle- 
siastically, as  many  such  have  discovered. 


L  E  T  T  K  R     IV.  123 

ular  confession,  and  that  not  only  because  retained  by  the 
Anglican  Church,  which  you  acknowledge  to  be  orthodox, 
but  because  the  one  implies  and  involves  the  other.  If  God 
has  given  this  power  to  Ilis  ministers,  it  must  have  been 
given  to  be  exercised  for  the  benefit  of  the  penitent,  unless 
we  suppose  the  greatest  absurdity.  Indeed,  this  is  expressly 
asserted  in  your  Prayer-Book  ;  for  your  form  of  absolution 
not  only  says  that  God  hath  given  "power,"  but  also 
"  commandment"  to  His  ministers  to  declare  absolution. 
This  must  mean  that  they  are  positively  commanded  by  the 
Almighty  to  exercise  this  power.  And  yet,  my  friend,  is  it 
not  an  extraordinary  thing  that,  although  publicly  acknow- 
ledging every  Sunday  that  they  are  under  such  a  "  command- 
ment," your  ministers  never  comply  with  that  "command- 
ment" by  actually  exercising  that  power  in  behalf  of  the  poor 
conscience-stricken  sinner  ?  All  opportunity  of  doing  so,  is 
taken  from  them  by  the  alterations  made  in  your  services,  un- 
less they  venture  to  do  so  privately  and  upon  their  individual 
responsibility,  as  r\  feiv  of  your  clei'gy  have  been  known  to  do 
in  recent  times.  But  if  this  power  is  to  be  exercised,  as  it 
evidently  must  be,  there  must  be  auricular  confession.  The 
priest  cannot  forgive  sins,  unless  these  sins  are  laid  before 
him  by  a  specific  confession.  To  forgive  sins  upon  a  mere 
"general  confession,"  such  as  you  make  in  your  Morning 
Prayer,  would  be  to  act  in  the  dark.  It  is  a  great  and  re- 
sponsible prerogative,  and  should  be  exercised  intelligently 
and  discreetly.  One  man  may  be  guilty  merely  of  some  tri- 
fling offence,  while  another  is  guilty  of  the  crime  of  robbery, 
adultery,  or  murder.  Can  both  men  be  absolved  on  the 
same  terms  and  with  equal  ease?  Yet,  no  distinction  can 
be  made  without  a  special  confession.  Besides,  the  minister 
is  authorized  also  to  "retain"  sins — to  withhold  pardon, 
when  necessary,  from  a  want  of  true  penitence  or  other 
cause.  But  this  distinction  he  cannot  exercise  unless  made 
acquainted  with  the  particular  sin  committed.  I  may  also 
add,  that  he  is  to  judge  of  the  character  and  degree  of  the 
sin  upon  which  he  is  to  act ;  and  this  he  cannot  do  without 
knowing  what  that  sin  is,  and  also  the  circum.stances  under 
which  it  was  committed.  For  these,  and  other  reasons,  the 
power  of  absolution  necessarily  involves  the  correlative  duty 
of  auricular  confes.sion. 

After  what  has  been  set  before  you  from  your  own  doctri- 
nal standard,  it  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  say  anything 


124  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

more  in  support  of  the  Catholic  practice  of  confession  and 
absolution ;  but  I  cannot  leave  the  subject  without  adducing 
a  few  testimonies  that  ought  to  have  weight  with  you,  if  you 
are  not  already  thoroughly  convinced  of  this  duty. 

In  the  first  place,  the  practice  is  founded  upon  the  express 
Word  of  God.  If  you  turn  to  the  18th  verse  of  the  _18th 
chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  you  will  find  that  our  Lord  said  to 
His  apostles  :  "  Verily  I  say  vmto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  ye 
shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  And  again, 
in  St.  John,  chap,  xx.,  vs.  22,  23,  He  said  to  them :  "  Re- 
ceive ye  the  Holy  Ghost :  Whosoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  x;nto  them;  and  whosoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained."  Once  more:  turn  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  James, 
chap,  v.,  V.  16,  and  j^ou  will  find  him,  when  speaking  of 
ministers  and  people,  giving  this  direction:  "  Confess  your 
faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  for  one  another,  that  ye  may 
be  healed."  By  these,  and  other  similar  passages,  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine  upon  the  subject,  is  clearly  established  from 
the  Bible. 

It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  give  you  a  long  list  of  An- 
glican divines,  who  have  testified  in  favor  of  the  divine  au- 
thority or  utility  of  confession  and  absolution ;  but  that 
cannot  be  necessary,  after  the  quotations  which  I  have  made 
from  the  English  Prayer-Book.  I  shall,  therefore,  only 
adduce  the  testimony  of  two  or  three  of  your  own  clergy. 
The  late  Dr.  Henshaw,  formerly  of  Baltimore,  afterwards 
Bishop  of  Rhode  Island,  published  "  Two  Lectures  in  an- 
swer to  the  Inquiry,  What  is  the  true  construction  of  the 
terms.  Priest,  Altar  and  Sacrifice,  as  used  in  the  Offices  of 
the  Church?"  In  this  pamphlet,  I  find  him  saying,  "We 
deny  not  the  priestly  gift  of  absolution ;  but  it  is  declara- 
tive only,  as  is  manifest  fi-om  the  form  employed  by  the 
Church."  After  quoting  that  form,  he  adds,  "  To  all  who 
truly  repent  and  believe,  this  absolution  is  available ;  and 
the  declaration  of  it  by  God's  minister  and  representative, 
should  impart  peace  and  consolation  to  their  souls."  (Pages 
10,  11.)  I  have  already  shown  that  the  distinction  ground- 
ed upon  the  word  "declarative,"  is  a  distinction  without 
essential  difi'erence.  When  the  point  is  properly  understood, 
absohrivg,  and  "  declaring  absolved"  are  practically  the  same 
thing.  The  Catholic  Church  does  not  teach  that  the  priest 
forgives  sin,  in  an  absolute  sense,  that  is,  independently  of 


I,  K  T  T  K  K      IV.  125 

God,  and  without  the  condition  of  repentance  or  contrition. 
Her  doctrine  is,  that  (Jod  himself  forgives  sin,  by  the  agency 
of  the  priest,  the  requisite  conditions  being  complied  with  on 
the  part  of  the  sinner. 

But  Dr.  Henshaw  proceeds  as  follows :  "  We  do  not  deny 
that  the  priest  may  remit  or  forgive  sins,  according  to  the 
tenor  of  the  original  commission  from  which  his  authority  is 
derived.  He  cannot  do  it.  however,  absolutely  and  uncon- 
ditionall}',  but  only  miin.stcn'dUi/  and  cojulifiomdlij,  by  ad- 
ministering those  sacraments,  which,  as  signs  and  seals  of 
the  covenant  of  grace,  nssitrc  pardon  and  acceptance  to  the 
repenting  and  believing  sinner."  Considering  absolution 
as  one  of  the  Sacraments,  there  is  nothing  in  this  passage 
inconsistent  with  the  Catholic  doctrine  upon  the  subject. 
But  even  apart  from  that  consideration,  the  only  difference 
between  us,  is  as  to  the  mode  by  which  the  priest  remits 
sins  ;  but  after  the  thing  itself  is  allowed,  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  dispute  about  the  mode.  Besides,  every  one  must 
perceive  that  after  conceding  so  much  in  regard  to  the  power 
itself,  it  is  unreasonable  and  inconsistent  to  make  such  lim- 
itations and  subtle  distinctions.  I  may  also  observe,  that  to 
most  Episcopalians  the  doctrine  of  remission  of  sins  through 
the  Sacraments  is  as  novel  and  as  difficult  as  by  priestly  ab- 
solution. In  citing  Dr.  Henshaw,  it  may  be  well  to  state 
that  he  did  not  belong  to  that  extreme  class  of  churchmen 
who  have  been  called  Puseyites ;  but  was  only  a  ' '  moderate 
churchman." 

I  will  give  you  the  testimony  of  one  other  clergyman  of 
your  denomination.  I  have  before  me  a  printed  sermon  on 
■'  Sacerdotal  Absolution."  It  was  preached  before  the  Con- 
vention of  the  Diocese  of  North  Carolina,  in  1843,  by  the 
Rev.  M.  A.  Curtis,  of  that  diocese,  and  "  published  by  re- 
c[uest."  The  text  upon  which  the  sermon  is  preached,  is  the 
passage  of  Scripture  which  I  have  quoted  above — "Whoso- 
ever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and  whoso- 
ever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  This  sermon  is, 
from  beginning  to  end,  a  regular  exposition  and  defence  of 
priestly  absolution,  and  might  have  answered  admirably  for 
any  Catholic  pulpit.  To  this  sermon  the  author  has  ap- 
pended a  number  of  notes,  from  which  I  will  quote  the  fol- 
lowing ' '  concluding  remark  :" —  ^ 

' '  The  chief  value  of  the  Apostolic  Succession  appears  to 
me  to  be  derived  from  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  Absolu- 


126  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

tioii,  or  the  reality  of  the  power  of  the  keys.  If  the  priest- 
hood has  not  authority  actually  to  dispense  the  benefits  which 
flow  to  us  through  the  Church,  what  can  be  urged  against  a 
mere  expediency  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  or  the 
assumption  of  the  office  of  priest  by  any  person  who  may 
choose  to  assume  it." 

This  author  is  as  clear  and  logical  as  he  is  bold  and  fear- 
less. Planting  himself  upon  the  broad  language  of  Holy 
Scripture,  he  asserts  the  doctrine  in  all  its  length  and 
breadth,  not  daring  to  set  limits  where  God  has  set  none, 
and  disdaining  to  make  use  of  verbal  distinctions  and  refine- 
ments, which  either  mean  nothing  at  all,  or  entirely  nullify 
the  doctrine  admitted  to  be  true. 

In  Staunton's  "Church  Dictionary,"  a  high  authority 
among  you,  I  find  admissions  to  the  same  purport.  Under 
the  word  "  Absolution,"  the  author,  who  is  a  clergyman  of 
your  Church,  says:  "This  existence  of  a  power  in  the 
priesthood  to  minister  absolution,  is  one  of  those  things  which 
the  Church  assumes  as  an  incontestible  fact,  the  warrant  for 
which  is  drawn  from  those  remarkable  words  of  Christ : 
'Whosoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted,'"  &c.  Pie 
then  proceeds  to  say  that  the  Church,  that  is,  the  "Episcopal 
Church,"  asserts  the  possession  of  the  authority  in  those  forms 
which  I  have  just  cited  from  your  Prayer-Book.  He  after- 
wards argues  that  his  Church  not  only  ' '  means  something 
by  absolution,"  but  "  regard  this  act  as  one  of  a  very  pecu- 
liar and  solemn  nature,"  for  certain  reasons,  the  first  of 
which  he  gives  as  follows  :  "  The  Church,  universally,  and  in 
all  ages,  has  claimed  the  power  of  absolution  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  priestly  office."  Now,  these  admissions  are  all 
that  a  Catholic  would  ask.  And  yet,  with  singular  inconsis- 
tency, this  author  afterwards  makes  such  explanations  and 
(|ualifications,  as  to  involve  himself  in  a  palpable  contradic- 
tion, all  through  fear  of  approaching  too  near  to  Rome  !  But 
let  his  explanations  avail  with  those  who  are  willing  to  accept 
them.  His  admissions  are  clear  and  positive,  particularly 
as  to  the  fact,  that  "  the  Church  in  all  ages  has  claimed  the 
power  of  absolution." 

These  testimonies,  which  might  easily  be  multiplied,  shew 
that  whatever  may  be  the  short-comings  of  the  great  body 
of  your  clergy  in  reference  to  this  doctrine,  there  have  been 
some  at  least,  who,  rising  above  the  jirejudices  of  education, 
have  had  the  courage  to  conform  their  belief  and  teachings 


LKTTEK     IV.  127 

upon  the  subject  to  your  Prayer-Book.  To  what  extent 
these  exceptional  clergy  men  have  persevered  in  this  doctrine 
and  especially  in  its  practice,  is  another  question.  It  is 
much  to  be  feai'ed  that  the  absence  of  any  provision  in  your 
liturgy  for  the  exercise  of  this  power,  and  the  intense  dis- 
like of  the  doctrine  on  the  part  of  your  people  generally, 
soon  embarra.'^s  and  dishearten  them. 

I  have  not  undertaken  to  exhibit  in  full  the  great  variety 
of  arguments  whicli  may  be  urged  in  favor  of  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  confession  in  order  to  absolution — my  limits  and 
plans  will  not  permit  it.  If  what  I  have  said  be  not  suffi- 
cient to  convince  you  of  its  obligation,  let  me  advise  you  to 
consult  some  of  the  many  excellent  Catholic  treatises  in 
which  this  great  truth  is  fully  argued.  I  will  merely  add 
one  or  two  remarks  before  I  quit  the  subject. 

If  Catholics  practice  this  doctrine,  it  is  solely  because 
they  regard  it  as  of  divine  institution  and  obligatory  upon 
all.  It  is  a  "  commandment"  resting  upon  them,  which  they 
dare  not  neglect  or  evade,  however  repugnant  the  duty 
may  be  to  flesh  and  blood.  The  words  of  the  Divine  Author 
of  Christianity',  which  I  have  already  cited,  lay  them  under 
this  imperative  obligation,  and  not  mere  custom  or  human 
precept.  If  this  institution  had  not  a  divine  origin,  let  its 
opposers  say  when  and  where  it  first  arose  in  the  world. 
Popes,  bishops  and  priests,  as  well  as  kings  and  peasants, 
have  all  alike  to  resort  to  the  confessional.  It  must  be  mani- 
fest that  such  an  institution,  binding  upon  all  alike,  the 
highest  ecclesiastic  and  the  humblest  layman,  could  never 
have  been  imposed  upon  mankind  by  mere  human  authority. 
Besides,  the  antiquity  of  the  institution  is  shewn  by  the  fact 
that  it  exists  also  among  the  ancient  oriental  sects,  such  as 
the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians,  who  separated  from  the  Ca- 
tholic Church  as  long  ago  as  the  fifth  century.* 


*  The  practice  of  coufession  is  now  carried  on  in  the  law-established 
Church  of  England  to  a  considerable  extent.  The  Rev.  Wm.  Gres- 
ley,  a  prominent  clergyman  of  that  Church,  recently  published  a  let- 
ter upon  the  su])ject,  in  which,  speaking  from  his  own  experience,  he 
saj's :  "He  has  known  more  sinners  brought  to  repenUiuce  by  this 
means  than  by  any  other  ;"  that  ''  it  is  just  -,vhat  sinful,  worldly  men, 
awakened  to  their  danger,  need,  in  order  to  work  in  them  a  thorough 
conversion  and  amendment  of  life;'  and  that  ''he  scarcelj'  ever  knew 
a  person  relapsing  into  irreligious  habits,  who  had  conscientiously 
used  confession.''     (See  New  York  Churchman,  Sep.  IG,  1858.)    Such 

12 


128  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

But  it  is  now  time  to  resume  the  thread  of  my  observa- 
tions upon  the  Prayer-Book. 

After  the  minister  has  read  the  form  of  absolution,  (but 
remember  without  absolving  any  one,)  he  then  kneels  and 
says  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  people  repeating  it  after  him. 
This  prayer  being  taken  from  the  Scriptures,  and  used  still 
more  frequently  among  the  Catholics,  it  is  one  of  those  parts 
of  your  service  which  are  worthy  of  consideration.  It  con- 
tains, however,  two  or  three  petitions,  to  which  I  ask  youi' 
attention  in  passing.  In  the  first  place,  what  is  the  meaning 
of  that  request,  ' '  Thy  Kingdom  come  ?"  What  is  that 
' '  Kingdom  ?"  Is  it  not  that  One  Church  which  He  has  es- 
tablished, and  of  which  all  must  become  members  ?  And 
when  you  pray  that  that  Kingdom  or  Church  may  come,  let 
me  entreat  you  to  put  yourself  in  the  way  to  receive  it  and 
submit  to  it,  by  cultivating  that  child-like  docility  which  our 
Saviour  declared  to  be  necessary  in  all  who  become  members 
of  it.  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  as  a  little  child,  shall  in  no 
wise  enter  therein." 

In  the  next  place,  let  me  ask  you  to  consider  the  meaning 
of  that  petition — "Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread?" 
Does  it  not  refer  to  something  more  than  the  ordinary  food 
for  the  body  ?  Does  it  not  mean  that  Bread  from  Heaven 
which  our  Redeemer  gave  us,  saying,  "  My  flesh  is  meat  in- 
deed, and  My  blood  is  drink  indeed:"  and  again,  "He 
that  eateth  of  this  bread,  shall  live  for  ever."  And  where, 
now,  can  you  find  that  Divine  Bread  except  upon  the  Catho- 
lic altar,  to  which  St.  Paul  evidently  alluded  when  he  said, 
"  We  have  an  altar  whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat,  who 
serve  the  tabernacles." 

After  the  Lord's  Prayer,  you  make  use  of  certain  versicles 
and  responses,  including  the  Gloria  Patri,  which  are  all 
taken  from  the  Catholic  liturgy.  Youthen  "  say  or  sing" 
the  95th  Psalm,  followed  by  the  Psalter  for  the  day.  All 
these  Scriptural  forms  of  devotion  were  in  use  in  the  various 

is  the  testimony  of  an  Anglican  clergyman.     And  yet  there  is  no  Ca- 
tholic practice  more  vehemently  assailed  by  Episcopalians  than  this. 

That  private  confession  was  practiced  in  the  early  Church,  is  ad- 
mitted by  that  standard  writer  of  the  Anglican  Church,  the  "judi- 
cious Hooker,"  who  says:  "Were  the  Fathers,  then,  without  use  of 
private  confession  as  long  as  public  was  in  use?  I  affirm  no  such 
thing."     (Eccles.  Pol.  B.  VI.,  chap,  iv.,  1.) 


LETTER     IV.  129 

Catholic  liturgies  and  services  long  before  your  Prayer- 
Book  was  thought  of.  After  the  Psalter  or  psalms  for  the 
day,  you  make  use  of  the  Gloria  Patri,  or  Gloria  in  Excel- 
sis.  Both  of  these  doxologies  are  very  ancient  composi- 
tions— so  ancient,  that  it  is  not  exactly  known  when  or  by 
whom  they  were  originally  composed  and  introduced  into 
use.  They  take  their  names  from  the  first  words  of  the 
original  Latin,  in  which  tongue  they  were  employed  by  the 
Catholic  Church,  ages  before  Cranmer  was  born.  The 
Gloria  in  Excelsis  is  frequently  designated  by  Catholics  as 
the  "  great  doxology,"  to  distinguish  it  from  the  the  Gloria 
Patri.  known  as  the  "  little  doxology."  It  is  called  the  An- 
gelic Hymn,  because  its  first  sentence  consists  of  the  ascrip- 
tion of  praise  used  by  the  angels  when  they  appeared  to  the 
shepherds  at  Bethlehem  to  announce  the  birth  of  the  Mes- 
siah. Of  course,  this  part  of  the  composition  is  borrowed 
from  the  Scriptures,  and  is  as  old  as  the  New  Testament. 
When  and  by  whom  the  remainder  was  added  to  it,  is  un- 
known. But  we  know  that,  from  a  very  early  period,  this 
beautiful  and  glowing  efiiasion  of  praise  has  been  used  in  the 
service  of  the  Mass,  and  is  still  used  in  that  connection 
throughout  the  year — in  imitation  of  which,  it  has  been  in- 
trdduced  into  the  Communion  Service  of  your  Prayer-Book. 
I  may  also  remark,  that  the  use  of  the  doxology  after  each 
psalm  is  a  custom  borrowed  from  the  Catholic  Church. 

After  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  your  minister  reads  a  lesson 
or  chapter  from  the  Old  Testnment,  which  is  taken  on  cer- 
tain Holy  Days,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  from  books 
which  your  Church  has  excluded  from  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures, such  as  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  &c.  Your  next  exer- 
cise is  to  say  or  sing  that  beautiful  and  sublime  composition 
called  the  "  Te  Deum,"  beginning,  "  We  prai.se  Thee,  O 
God."  For  this  grand  production  you  are  indebted  to  the 
Catholic  Church.  It  was  composed  by  St.  Ambrose,  Bishop 
of  Milan,  in  Italy,  a  zealous  advocate  of  the  authority  and 
prerogatives  of  the  Pope,  and  was  used  in  Catholic  worship 
ages  before  Cranmer  existed.  There  are  some  passages  in 
this  sublime  chaunt  which,  if  attentively  considered,  must 
be  felt  to  be  out  of  place  anywhere  but  in  a  Catholic  temple. 
When  you  exclaim,  "  The  noble  army  of  martyrs  praise 
Thee,"  what  do  you  mean  by  these  words?  Who  com- 
posed that  "noble  army  of  martyrs?"  You  do  not  refer 
to  Angels,  Prophets  and  Apostles,  for  they  are  previously 
mentioned  as  united  in  this  chorus  of  praise  to  the  Supreme 


130  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Being.  It  can  mean  notliing  else  than  those  myriads  of 
Catholic  martyrs  who  perished  in  the  persecutions  Avaged 
against  the  Church  during  the  first  five  centuries  after  the 
Apostles.  These  were  the  martyrs  which  the  Catholic 
Bishop  of  Milan  had  in  his  mind  when  he  indited  these 
words — martyrs  who  esteemed  it  their  highest  privilege  and 
a  mark  of  orthodoxy  to  be  in  communion  with  the  Holy- 
See,  that  divinely  appointed  centre  of  Church  unity  and  au- 
thority— martyrs  whom  the  Catholic  Church  still  honors  by 
name  in  her  liturgy,  but  whom  you  have  ruthlessly  displaced 
from  your  calendar  and  refused  to  recognize. 

I  have  ascribed  the  composition  of  the  Te  Denvi  to  St. 
Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  who  died  early  in  the  fifth  century ; 
such  is  the  general  testimony  of  antiquity.  It  can  be  clearly 
proved  to  have  been  in  use  in  the  Catholic  Church  since  the 
sixth  century.  If  any  one  following  the  conceit  of  some  in 
regard  to  the  bishops  and  fathers  of  that  early  period,  sup- 
poses that  Ambrose  was  not  a  Catholic,  in  the  modern  sense, 
he  has  only  to  read  the  life  and  writings  of  that  saintly  bish- 
op. Among  the  many  works  which  he  wrote,  I  find  one 
"  On  Virginity,"  and  another  on  the  "  Institution  of  a  Vir- 
o'in."  In  the  latter  work  he  combats  the  error  of  those  who 
denied  the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  Mother  of  God.  He 
had  a  community  of  virgins  under  his  charge  in  Milan,  to 
whom  "  he  gave  the  veil."  Many  miracles  are  said  to  have 
been  wrought  by  him,  the  truth  of  which  is  admitted  by  Dr. 
Cave,  an  Anglican  writer  of  great  authority  in  such  matters. 
Ambrose  relates  in  one  of  his  works,  that  when  his  brother 
Satyrus  was  shipwrecked  and  cast  upon  an  island,  and  desi- 
ring to  be  baptized,  he  was  careful  to  inquire  whether  the 
bishop  there  "agreed  in  faith  with  the  Catholic  bishops, 
that  is,  with  the  Roman  Church  ;"  and  finding  that  he  was 
not,  refused  to  receive  baptism  there.  These  things  are 
sufficient  to  show  what  sort  of  a  Catholic  Ambrose  was. 
Archbishop  Usher,  Dr.  Cave,  and  other  Anglican  divines 
have  ascribed  this  composition  to  St.  Nicetius,  bishop  of 
Triers,  in  France,  who  flourished  about  the  year  535.  This 
bishop  was  no  less  a  Catholic  than  Ambrose.  France  has 
always  been  in  communion  with  Home.  Nicetius  received 
his  education  in  a  monastery :  from  that  circumstance,  as 
well  as  from  the  later  period  at  which  he  lived,  he  must 
have  been  deeply  tinctured  with  the  so-called  ' '  errors  of 
Popery,"  according  to  the  Protestant  theory  that  after  the 


LETTER     IV.  131 

third  or  fuurtli  century  the  Church  gradually  became  more 
and  more  corrupt ;  a  most  absurd  theory,  and  one,  by  the 
by,  which  jMr.  Isaac  Taylor,  an  eminent  Protestant  writer, 
shows  to  be  erroneous  in  his  work  on  "Ancient  Christi- 
anity." 

In  the  next  verso  of  this  hymn  you  represent  the  Church 
as  taking  part  in  this  chorus  of  praise :  "  The  Holy  Church 
throughout  all  the  world  doth  acknowledge  thee."  Consider 
what  is  the  "  Holy  Church,"  here  mentioned.  You  must 
admit  that,  in  its  true  meaning  it  refers  to  the  Catholic 
Church  with  the  Pope  at  its  head.  St.  Ambrose,  as  a  mem- 
ber of  that  Church,  could  have  meant  nothing  else,  and 
while  used  in  that  Church  during  the  long  period  of  a  thou- 
sand years,  between  Ambrose  and  Cranmer,  it  had  no  other 
meaning.  And  that  which  was  its  original  meaning,  and  its 
meaning  for  a  thousand  years,  must  surely  be  its  genuine, 
and  present  meaning.  If,  therefore,  you  use  it  in  its  true 
meaning,  you  do  but  bear  testimony  to  the  Catholic  Church 
every  time  you  join  in  its  glorious  strains.  But  if  you  do 
not  use  it  in  that  sense,  let  me  ask  you  to  define  the  sense  in 
which  you  do  use  it.  I  fear  you  will  find  this  to  be  a  diffi- 
cult matter.  Like  other  portions  of  the  Prayer-Book,  to 
which  you  have  long  been  accustomed,  you  probably  use  it 
in  a  vague  and  unmeaning  manner.  It  would  be  well,  if 
you  would  for  once,  bring  yourself  to  a  clear  and  exact  defi- 
nition in  regard  to  it.  What,  then,  do  you  mean  by  the- 
"Holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world?"  You  cannot 
mean  your  own  Church,  for  that  is  not  spread  "  throughout 
all  the  world,"  but  confined  to  certain  portions  of  the  Unitedi 
States.  You  cannot  mean  the  established  Church  of  Eng- 
land, for  that  is  limited  to  the  dominions  of  Queen  Victoria. 
You  cannot  mean  to  include  in  that  term  PJpiscopalians,  An- 
glicans and  Iloman  Catholics,  for  these  are  separate  and  dis- 
tinct bodies,  at  variance  with  each  other  in  essential  doc- 
trines. If  you  meant  them  you  would  have  to  say  "  Church- 
es," and  not  "Church,"  for  they  are  not  one.  but  several. 
Besides,  if  you  include  the  Catholics,  you  admit  them  to 
constitute  at  least  a  part  of  the  "Holy  Church"  of  God. 
And  if  you  admit  that,  what  becomes  of  your  oft-repeated 
charges  against  that  Church,  of  corruption,  superstition  and 
idolatry!  Such  abominations  cannot  exist  in  a  /A-/// Church. 
But  if  you  do  not  join  in  these  charges,  and  admit  her  to 
be  "  holy,"  why  are  you  separated  from  her,  and  why  do 
12* 


132  LETTERS     TO     AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 

you  continue  to  use  a  Prayer-Book  which  in  its  "  Articles 
of  Religion  "  makes  these  charges.  Ah,  my  friend,  you  are 
evidently  involved  in  an  unhappy  dilemma.  These  words, 
"  the  Holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world,"  can  mean 
only  what  their  saintly  atithor  intended,  and  what  they  have 
always  meant;  that  is,  the  Catholic  Church,  with  the  Pope 
as  its  chief  bishop  and  supreme  head  on  earth.  This  is  the 
only  Church  now  existing,  that  is  spread  "throughout  all 
the  world."  You  find  it  not  only  in  the  United  States  and 
in  England,  but  in  South  America,  in  Europe,  Asia  and 
Africa;  in  fact,  "throughout  all  the  world."  She  is  the 
only  Church  that  can  claim  universality  ;  and  therefore,  she, 
and  she  only,  is  "the  Holy  Church  throughout  all  the 
world."  And  if  you  do  not  refer  to  her,  when  you  "say 
or  sing"  the  Te  JJemn,  there  is  no  other  Church  to  which 
you  can  refer,  and  you  use  these  words  without  meaning. 

Thus,  my  friend,  in  the  use  of  this  sublime  composition  of 
a  Catholic  bishop  and  saint,  more  particularly  in  those  two 
sentences,  "the  noble  army  of  martyrs  praise  Thee,  the 
Holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world  doth  acknowledge 
Thee,"  your  Book  of  Common-Prayer  bears  testimony  to  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  plainly  points  you  to  her  bosom  as  the 
source  of  life  and  salvation.  How  can  you  join  in  these 
sentences  every  Sunday  morning,  and  yet  refuse  those  mar- 
tyrs a  place  in  your  calendar  ?  And  how  can  you  remain 
separated  from  that  "Holy  Church?"  Surely,  divine  Pro- 
vidence in  permitting  this  sublime  hymn  to  be  retained  in 
your  service,  designed  thereby  to  give  you  and  others  a 
standing  memorial  of  his  true  Church,  and  a  perpetual  call 
to  its  ever  open  portals.  May  you  not  be  guilty  of  closing 
your  eyes  to  the  way-marks  which  He  has  thus  given  you, 
at  the  very  time,  too,  when  you  utter  these  solemn  words, 
"  We  believe  that  thou  shalt  come  to  be  our  Judge." 

A.  B. 


LETTER  V. 

Remarks  on  tho  Ikncdicite. — Invocation  of  Saints  and  Angels. — Ru- 
bric before  the  Apostles'  Creed. — The  Atlianasian  Creed. — Left  out 
of  the  American  Priyer-Book. — Remarks  on  the  Apostles'  Creed. — 
The  Niceue  Creed. — Additions  made  to  those  ancient  symbols. — 
The  Descent  into  Hell. — Communion  of  Saints. — The  Consubstan- 
tiality  of  Christ. — Articles  of  the  Creeds  cannoi,  be  proved  from  the 
Scriptures  alone. — The  Incarnation. 

My  Dear  Friexd  : 

After  the  Te  Dcum,  I  find  in  your  Praycr-Book,  a  Canti- 
cle, which  is  allowed  to  be  used  instead  of  that  hymn,  at  the 
option  of  the  minister ;  a  privilege  which  is  seldom  exer- 
cised. This  Canticle  is  the  "  Benedicite,"  so  called  from  the 
first  word  in  the  Latin  version  of  the  composition.  There  are 
two  or  three  verses  in  it  which  possibly  you  have  never 
noticed,  or  attentively  considered.  Li  the  second  verse,  you 
say,  "0,  ye  Angels  of  the  Lord,  bless  ye  the  Lord ;  praise 
Him  and  magnify  Him  for  ever."  Here  you  invoke  the 
Angels  of  God,  although  you  condemn  Catholics  for  that 
practice.  When  we  call  upon  them,  you  allege  that  they 
cannot  hear  us.  How  is  it  that  they  can  hear  you,  when 
you  call  upon  them  to  bless  the  Lord  ?  In  another  verse, 
towards  the  end,  you  say:  "  0  ye  spirits  and  souls  of  the 
righteous,  bless  ye  the  Lord."  Here  you  advance  a  step 
further,  and  actually  invoke  the  souls  of  the  departed  ;  al- 
though you  profess  to  reject  the  Catholic  practice  of  the 
invocation  of  saints ! 

Probably  you  are  not  aware  of  the  source  of  this  Canticle, 
found  in  your  service.  Let  me  inform  you,  then,  that  it  is 
the  Canticle  or  song  which  the  "  three  children"  sang  when 
they  were  thrown  into  the  fiery  furnace  by  order  of  King 
Nebuchadnezzer.  You  will  find  it  in  the  third  chapter  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel,  of  the  Catholic  Bible ;  but  you  will  look 
in  vain  in  your  own  Bible  for  it.  It  has  been  wholly  omitted 
as  Apocryphal,  and  yet  by  a  strange  inconsistency  it  has  a 
place  in  your  Prayer-Book.  You  displace  it  from  the  Holy 
Bible  as  spurious ;  and  yet,  you  give  it  a  place  in  your  pub- 

(133) 


134  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN, 

lie  worship,  just  as  you  do  other  portions  of  Scripture  !  As 
this  Canticle  is  found  in  the  most  ancient  Greek  and  Latin 
versions  of  the  Bible,  besides  having  been  received  as  canon- 
ical by  the  Church  from  the  early  times,  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  it  constitutes  a  portion  of  the  genuine 
Scriptures ;  and  consequently  its  rejection  involves  a  sin  of 
great  magnitude.  But  whether  you  assent  to  this  or  not, 
you  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  gross  inconsistency  of  ex- 
cluding it  from  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  at  the  same 
time  retaining  it  in  the  public  liturgy. 

I  have  also  to  point  out  to  you  a  discrepancy  between  the 
English  and  the  American  Prayer-Books  in  regard  to  this 
Canticle.  In  the  former  I  find,  at  the  close,  the  following 
verse:  "O  Ananias,  Azarius,  and  Misael,  bless  ye  the 
Lord;  praise  Him,  and  magnify  Him  forever." 

This  verse  forms  a  part  of  that  beautiful  Canticle  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  Catholic  Bible,  as  well  as  in  the  English  Prayer- 
Book  ;  but  in  the  American  Prayer-Book  it  has  been  wholly 
omitted !  Now  why  this  omission  ?  It  was  evidently  be- 
cause there  was  an  unwillingness  to  call  upon  these  holy  men, 
long  since  departed  to  their  reward  in  heaven.  It  would 
have  been  an  "  invocation  of  saints."  It  is  true  this  is  done 
in  the  verse  in  which  ' '  the  souls  of  the  righteous  "  are  in- 
voked :  but  the  act  becomes  more  palpable,  and  more  difficult 
to  explain  away,  when  those  departed  souls  are  called  on  by 
name — "0  Ananias,  Azarius,  and  Misael."  How,  my 
friend,  can  you  justify  this  omission?  You  cannot  do  so, 
without  condemning  the  original  compilers  of  your  Prayer- 
Book,  and  the  founders  of  your  mother  Church.  If  they 
were  right  in  retaining  it,  your  own  Church  is  wrong  in 
rejecting  it. 

In  this  Canticle,  your  Prayer-Book  again  bears  testimony 
to  the  Catholic  Church  :  to  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  in- 
voking departed  saints.  Every  one  must  perceive  that 
there  is  no  material  difference  between  saying  "  0  ye  Angels 
of  the  Lord  bless  ye  the  Lord,"  or  "0  ye  spirits  and  souls 
of  the  righteous  bless  ye  the  Lord,"  and  saying,  as  the  Ca- 
tholic does,  "  0  ye  Saints  and  Angels,  pray  for  me."  How 
then  can  you  do  the  one,  and  yet  refuse  to  do  the  other? 

But  it  is  not  only  in  this  Canticle  that  you  invoke  the 
Angels ;  you  do  the  same  in  the  psalm  called  Benedic, 
anima  mea,  appointed  to  be  said  or  sung  in  your  Evening 
Prayer,  after  the  second  lesson.    The  verse  to  which  I  refer. 


L  E  T  T  E  H     V  .  135 

reads  thus :  "0  praise  the  Lord,  ye  Angels  of  His,  ye  that 
excel  in  strength,"  &c.  And  let  me  remind  you  that  this  is 
not  merely  the  language  of  the  compilers  of  your  Prayer- 
Book :  it  is  a  portion  of  the  inspired  word  of  God,  as  you 
may  see  by  turning  to  psalm  103  of  the  Protestant  Bible. 
And  this  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  we  have  Scriptu- 
ral authority  for  invoking  the  Angels.  In  Psalm  148  you 
will  find  a  similnr  prayer  :  "  Praise  yc  Him  all  Ilis  Angels ; 
praise  ye  Him  all  Jlis  hosts." 

This  practice  of  invoking  saints  and  angels  is  not  only 
very  ancient,  but  conformable  to  both  reason  and  Scripture. 
That  these  hajjpy  denizens  of  another  world,  at  least  the 
angels,  aid  and  succor  God's  people  upon  earth,  is  admitted 
by  many  Protestants.  And  this  opinion  is  sustained  not 
only  by  that  portion  of  the  Prayer-Book  just  cited,  but  more 
expressly  in  your  collect  or  prayer  for  St.  Michael's  Day,  in 
which  you  pray  God  to  "grant  that  as  thy  holy  angels 
always  do  thee  service  in  heaven  ;  so  bij  thy  appointment,  they 
may  succor  and  defend  us  on  earth."  Here  is  plainly  taught 
the  doctrine  of  the  guardianship  of  angels.  It  is  also  set 
foi'th  in  one  of  your  hymns,  the  171st,  thus: 

•'Lord  keep  us  safe  this  night, 
Secure  from  all  our  fears  ; 
Mat/  angels  guard  us  while  ice  sleep, 
Till  morning  light  appears." 

Thus  in  the  solemn  services  of  your  Church,  and  in  your 
evening  song,  you  alike  pray  that  the  angels  may  "  guard," 
"  succor  and  defend"  you.  You  must  therefore  admit  this 
doctrine.  You  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  many  passages  of 
Scripture  in  which  it  is  plainly  taught,  such  as  that  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebi-ews,  when  speaking  of  the  angels,  it  is 
said,  "Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to 
minister  for  those  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation  ?"  (Chap, 
i.,  v.  14.) 

As  to  the  ministry  and  guardianship  of  angels,  then,  Pro- 
testants and  Catholics  may  be  said  to  be  agreed.  And  yet 
this  truth  contains  the  germ  of  the  entire  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  matter.  This  truth  being 
admitted,  there  remains  nothing  worth  disputing  about. 
The  chief  Protestant  objection  to  our  practice  is  that  gene- 
rally couched  in  this  interrogation  :  "  How  can  the  saints  or 
angels  hear  you  ?"     And  yet  this  objection  vanishes  the  mo- 


136  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

nient  we  admit  the  guardianship  of  angels.  The  angels 
cannot  guard  us  without  being  present,  and  cognizant  of  the 
circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed.  And  if  thus  present 
and  cognizant,  it  is  absurd  to  ask,  "  how  can  they  hear  us'V 
Again :  if  the  angels  guard  us,  they  must  have  power  to 
"succor  and  defend  us,"  as  your  collect  expresses  it :  and  if 
they  are  present  and  know  all  about  us,  and  have  power  to 
succor  us,  it  is  alike  the  dictate  of  reason  and  piety  to  call 
on  them  for  assistance.  The  truth  is,  my  friend,  if  I  may 
be  allowed  to  speak  plainly,  you  Protestants  do  not  really 
believe  in  the  guardianship  of  angels.  You  may  admit  it  in 
theory,  and  in  your  public  formularies,  hut  j^i'^tcticalli/  you 
do  not  realize  it.  No  one  can  truly  believe  the  doctrine, 
without  reducing  it  to  practice ;  but  you  not  only  fail  to  re- 
duce it  to  practice,  but  even  condemn  the  practice.  If  you 
are  in  need  or  danger,  you  instantly  call  upon  the  friend 
who  happens  to  be  near  for  assistance.  This,  you  say,  is 
right  and  natural.  But  you  tell  me  you  have  a  guardian 
angel  at  your  side,  who  is  able  to  "  succor  and  defend"  you, 
and  yet  you  refuse  to  ask  that  angel's  assistance  !  Whence 
arises  this  marked  difference  in  your  conduct  towards  your 
friend  and  towards  your  guardian  angel  ?  It  must  be  be- 
cause you  believe  the  former  is  present  to  help,  and  the  latter 
is  not.  If  the  angel  be  really  present  to  help,  there  can  be 
no  more  impropriety  in  imploring  his  assistance,  than  there 
can  be  in  asking  the  assistance  of  your  earthly  friend — but, 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  plainly  reasonable  and  natural  to  do  so. 
Now,  my  friend,  if  you  will  permit  me  to  say  it,  the  differ- 
ence between  you  and  the  Catholic,  upon  this  and  some 
other  points  discussed  in  these  letters  is  simply  this :  you 
assent  in  theory  to  certain  abstract  truths,  but  in  rather  a 
vague  and  indefinite  sense ;  whereas,  the  Catholic  fully  be- 
lieves them,  with  a  clear  and  perfect  faith,  and  cordially 
receives  and  practices  all  that  can  be  fairly  and  logically 
deduced  from  them.  I  need  not  say  whose  conduct  is  most 
consonant  with  reason  and  fitness  ;  but  I  would  simply 
remind  you  of  the  utter  inconsistency  and  of  the  unsatis- 
factoriness  of  only  a  half-way  belief  in  the  great  and  pre- 
cious truths  of  religion.  What  peace  and  comfort  can 
you  derive  from  these  truths  when  held  in  this  imper- 
fect manner?  Take  the  doctrine  of  priestly  absolution. 
Church  authority,  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Eucharist,  or 
the   guardianship  of  angels :  of  what  use  are  these  things 


LETTER    V.  1S7 

when  held  only  as  theoretical,  cold,  vague  and  abstract 
truths  ?  If  I  ask  you  for  a  clear  statement  of  your  belief, 
in  one  of  them,  your  answer  is  either  so  vague  and  incom- 
prehensible, that  I  can  make  nothing  of  it ;  or  you  pro- 
ceed to  make  so  many  qualifying  and  attenuating  explana- 
tions, that  the  doctrine  "dissolves  into  thin  air."  How 
much  more  consistent,  more  logical,  more  manly,  more  no- 
ble it  is  to  receive  these  truths  in  all  their  fulness,  and  in 
all  their  practical  consequences  and  developments.  Within 
the  range  of  Christian  science,  there  is  hardly  a  truth  so 
beautiful  and  so  rich  in  practical  comfort  and  peace,  as  that 
of  the  guardianship  of  angels.  And  yet  I  am  sure  I  do  you 
no  injustice,  when  I  express  the  opinion  that  you  rarely,  if 
ever  realize  that  truth  in  your  daily  life,  or  derive  from  it 
a  particle  of  consolation  I  See,  my  friend,  how  you  defraud 
yourself  in  this  truth,  as  in  others^  which  you  only  j^artially 
believe.  The  fact  is,  these  truths  are  not  in  harmony  with 
the  rest  of  your  doctrinal  system,  nor  with  your  isolated 
position  ;  and  hence,  instead  of  becoming  strong  and  fruit- 
yielding  plants,  they  barely  exist,  like  half-withered  cuttings, 
nearly  hidden  by  weeds,  in  an  uncongenial  soil. 

Perhaps  you  will  say  that  if  the  guardianship  of  angels 
involves  the  invocation  of  angels,  it  does  not  justify  the  invo- 
cation of  departed  saints,  inasmuch  as  they  are  two  distinct 
classes  of  beings.  That  the  one  fully  proves  the  other,  I 
do  not  assert.  But  the  invocation  of  angels  necessarily  re- 
futes the  principal  objections  urged  against  the  invocation  of 
saints,  viz  :  that  it  is  of  an  idolatrous  character.  If  it  be 
not  idolatrous  to  invoke  your  guardian  angel,  who  is  a  cre- 
ated being,  it  cannot  be  idolatrous  to  invoke  St.  Mary  or  St. 
Paul,  also  created  beings.  Besides,  the  canticle  of  the  three 
Hebrew  martyrs,  as  used  in  your  Prayer-Book,  justifies  the 
invocation  of  saints  as  well  as  angeb.  You  there  invoke  the 
"spirits  and  souls  of  the  righteous;"  and  in  the  English 
Prayer-Book,  these  three  martyrs  are  invoked  by  name,  "  0 
Ananias,  Azarius  and  Misael."  The  practice  is  justified 
also  by  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  you  profess  to  believe 
every  Sunday.  When  you  profess  your  faith  in  the  "  Com- 
munion of  Saints,"  you  can  mean  nothing  less  than  that 
there  is  a  fellowship,  a  community  of  interests  between  God's 
people  upon  earth  and  in  heaven,  that  they  all  constitute  one 
family,  and  feel  and  care  for  each  other.  But  how  can  all 
this  be,  unless  in  some  way  or  other  they  are  cognizant  of  us 


138  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

and  of  our  afiairs.  And  if  thus  cognizant,  tliey  must  be  in  a 
position  to  receive  our  invocations,  as  the  angels  are.  This 
idea  is  plainly  advanced  in  several  hymns  of  your  Prayer- 
Book.     Thus,  in  the  212th  :— 

"  Lo,  ■what  a  cloud  of  Avitnesses 
Encompass  us  around, 
Men  once  like  us  with  suffering  tried, 
But  now  with  glory  crowned." 

Also,  in  the  26th  :— 

"  Angels,  and  living  saints  and  dead. 
But  one  communion  make  ; 
All  join  in  Christ,  their  vital  Head, 
And  of  His  love  partake." 

Again  :  in  the  5th  hymn  you  carry  out  this  idea  by  actu- 
ally invoking  the  saints  above  : — ■ 

' '  Let  every  listening  saint  above 
Wake  all  the  tunef^ul  soul  of  love, 
And  touch  the  sweetest  string." 

Thus,  in  your  songs  of  praise  and  devotional  anthems, 
the  pious  instincts  of  the  heart  break  through  the  barriers  of 
a  cold  and  rigid  system,  and  place  you  in  sweet  communion 
with  saints  of  former  ages.  But  if  it  be  right  to  call  upon 
the  saints  in  verse,  surely  you  will  not  say  it  is  wrong  to  call 
upon  them  in  prose.  Nor  will  you  attempt,  I  trust,  to  ex- 
plain it  all  away  as  figurative  language  or  poetical  license. 
Hymns  of  praise  adopted  by  the  Church,  and  authorized  to 
be  used  in  public  worship,  ought  not  to  contain  the  least 
sanction  of  error  in  doctrine  or  practice.  It  must  therefore 
be  presumed,  that  the  sentiments  they  contain,  no  matter 
by  what  figures  expressed,  must  be  in  accordance  with  sound 
theology.  To  suppose  the  contrary,  would  be  a  serious  re- 
flection upon  the  wisdom  and  prudence  of  your  ecclesiastical 
authorities. 

I  am  satisfied  that  the  objection  to  this  doctrine,  on  the 
part  of  many,  arises  fi"om  misconception.  Let  me  therefore 
state  what  the  Catholic  Church  teaches  upon  the  subject. 
By  the  Council  of  Trent,  she  speaks  thus  :  ' '  The  Saints 
reigning  with  Christ,  oiFer  up  their  prayers  to  God  for  men ; 
that  it  is  good  and  useful  suppliantly  to  invoke  them,  and 
to  have  recourse  to  their  prayers,  help  and  assistance,  to  ob- 
tain favors  from  God,  through  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  who  is  alone  our  Redeemer  and  Saviour."     (Sess.  25 


LETTER     V.  139 

>de  Invoc.)  Observe  how  moderate,  reasonable  and  Scriptu- 
ral is  this  declaration.  You  may  be  struck  with  the  words, 
•'the  saints  rc!(jnhHj  nith  Christ."  This  is,  perhaps,  a 
more  exalted  idea  of  their  position  than  you  have  been  led  to 
form.  And  yet  it  is  fully  justified  by  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture in  many  places.  To  cite  only  a  few  of  them.  Our  Sa- 
viour said  to  his  Apostles  :  "  Ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  (Matth.  xix. 
28. )  And  again,  in  the  Book  of  Eevclation,  we  have  this 
truth  expressly  stated  when  our  Lord  sajs,  "  To  him  that 
overcometh  will  I  grant  to  sit  with  me  in  my  throne."  (Rev. 
iii.  21.)  From  those  and  other  like  passages,  it  is  evident 
the  saints  do  reign  with  Christ,  as  declared  by  the  Fathers  of 
Trent.  This  fact  is  important,  because  constituting  the 
ground  of  the  power  ascribed  to  the  saints,  and  they  who 
profess  to  be  guided  by  Scripture,  cannnot  refuse  their  assent 
to  it.  Jacob's  name  was  changed  into  Israel,  because  he  had 
power  with  God,  and  prevailed  in  his  importunate  request. 
But  if  he,  while  yet  in  the  flesh,  had  such  power,  how  much 
greater  must  be  the  power  of  those  holy  beings,  who,  after 
conquering  the  world,  non:  .^it  icith  Christ  iqwii  his  throne. 
Can  any  one  doubt  their  power  with  God  to  obtain  for  us 
' '  help  and  assistance  V"'  And  if  they  are  able  to  help  us  by 
their  prayers,  they  must  be  equally  iriJJing  to  do  so,  as  they 
still  form  with  us  "  one  communion"  and  one  family.  But 
I  wish  you  to  notice  another  feature  of  this  doctrine,  as  set 
forth  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  It  is,  that  the  saints  obtain 
favors  for  us,  "  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  who  is  alone 
our  Redeemer  and  Saviour."  Thus  we  invoke  them,  not  as 
gods,  who  can  dispense  fiivors  by  their  own  inherent  right 
and  power,  but  simply  as  highly  exalted  fj-eatures,  possessing 
great  influence  with  the  Supreme  Being.  All  spiritual  favors 
come  from  God  only,  in  a  strict  and  absolute  sense.  But  he 
is  pleased  to  bestow  them  upon  us,  through  the  intercession 
of  His  saints,  and  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
Catholic  doctrine  upon  the  subject.  You  will  perceive  that 
this  doctrine  does  not  derogate  from  the  merits  of  Christ, 
since  we  receive  all  through  Ilim.  Nor  does  it  trench  on  the 
mediatorial  office  of  Christ,  for  the  same  reason;  and  also, 
because  that  office  consists  chiefly  in  the  work  of  Redemption 
performed  by  Christ  alone,  on  Calvary.  And  although  Christ 
is  also  our  Intercessor  in  heaven,  yet  it  is  in  the  capacity  of 
13 


140  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Kedeemev.  But  whether  this  exphination  be  satisfactory  or 
not,  there  is  yet  another  answer  which  is  sufficient  by  itself. 
Intercession  of  the  saints  means  nothing  more  than  the 
prayers  of  the  saints  in  our  behalf.  AU^  Christians  think  it 
right  to  ask  the  prayers  of  their  ministers,  and  the  prayers 
of  each  other.  Does  this  interfere  with  the  office  of  Christ, 
as  Mediator  and  Intercessor  ?  Certainly  not.  How  then  can 
it  intei-fere  with  that  office,  to  ask  the  prayers  of  the  saints, 
who  sit  with  Christ  upon  his  throne  ? 

I  might  easily  defend  this  doctrine  from  the  Scriptures  at 
great  length ;  but  as  I  am  only  noticing  it  incidentally,  I 
must  content  myself  with  one  or  two  references.  In  the 
Book  of  Revelation,  the  prayers  of  God's  people  are  repre- 
sented as  oiFered  up  by  heavenly  beings :  ' '  And  when  he 
had  taken  the  book,  the  four  beasts  and  four  and  twenty 
elders  fell  down  before  the  Lamb,  having  every  one  of  them 
harps,  and  golden  vials  full  of  odours,  which  are  the  prayers 
of  the  saints."  (Rev.  v.  8  ;  see  also  chap,  viii.,  3,  4.)  By 
the  term  "saints,"  is  here  meant  the  holy  ones  of  Grod 
upon  earth,  for  such  was  its  ordinary  use  in  the  Apostolic 
age ;  hence,  St.  Paul,  in  one  of  his  epistles,  speaks  of  his 
converts  as  '•  called  to  be  saints."  In  the  other  passage  to 
which  I  have  referred,  an  angel  with  a  golden  censor  and  in- 
cense, is  represented  as  offering  the  prayers  of  the  saints  to 
Grod.  Here,  then,  is  an  agency  performed  by  the  spirits 
above,  similar  to  that  which  is  implied  in  the  invocation  of 
saints  as  now  practiced  among  Catholics. 

It  would  be  easy  to  shew  that  the  invocation  of  saints  has 
been  taught  and  practiced  by  the  Church  in  every  age  since 
the  Apostles.  Episcopalians  appeal  to  the  "ancient  fa- 
thers" in  behalf  of  Episcopacy  or  the  ' '  three  orders."  By  a 
similar  appeal,  the  doctrine  of  the  invocation  of  saints  may 
be  much  more  clearly  established.  I  could  cite  many  pages 
of  testimony  from  the  standard  writers  of  the  second,  third, 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  including  the  very  men  to  whom 
you  appeal  in  behalf  of  Episcopacy,  shewing  that  they  both 
taught  and  practiced  the  invocation  of  saints  precisely  as  do 
Catholics  at  the  present  day.  Among  these  writers  are  sev- 
eral who  occupy  a  place  in  the  Calendar  of  the  English 
Pi*ayer-Book,  such  as  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  Grego- 
ry, Bede,  &c.,  &c.  To  make  such  quotations,  would  swell 
these  letters  to  an  unreasonable  size.     I  must  therefore  refer 


L  K  T  T  K  n     V  .  141 

you  to  works  ■vrliich  treat  upon  this  ami  other  Catholic  doc- 
trines fully.* 

But  it  is  time  to  resume  our  examination  of  your  ' '  3Iorn- 
ing  Prayer."  After  the  second  lesson,  which  is  taken  from 
the  New  Testament,  according  to  the  calendar,  you  say  or 
sing  either  the  JuhiJate  Deo.  which  is  taken  from  the  lOOth 
psalm  of  the  Bible,  or  the  Bened ictus,  which  is  taken  from 
the  first  chapter  of  St.  Luke,  and  may  be  called  the  Canticle 
of  Zacharias.  More  than  half  of  the  latter,  however,  has 
been  loppod  off  by  your  American  revisers. 

The  next  act  in  your  service  is  to  recite  the  "  Apostles' 
Creed,"  which  is  said  aloud  by  the  "minister  and  people 
standing,"  as  the  rubric  directs.  In  regard  to  the  use  of 
this  creed,  I  find,  in  the  first  place,  three  points  of  difference 
between  the  English  and  the  American  Prayer-Book .  First, 
in  the  former  the  creed  is  allowed  to  be  "  sung,"  as  in  the 
Catholic  Church  ;  secondly,  in  the  former  this  creed  is  set 
aside  on  "such  days  as  the  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius  is  ap- 
pointed to  be  read,"  whereas  in  the  American  Prayer-Book 
the  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius  has  been  wholly  left  out,  and  no 
allusion  ever  made  to  it  I  Thirdly,  the  rubric  in  the  Ameri- 
can Prayer-Book  says  ' '  any  church  may  omit  the  words  He 
di^scended  into  hell,  or  may,  instead  of  them,  use  the  words, 
He  went  into  the  place  of  departed  spirits,  which  are  consid- 
ered words  of  the  same  meaning  in  the  creed ;"  whereas  in 
the  English  Prayer-Book  no  such  liberty  is  permitted.  These 
diflbrences  are  very  curious,  and  at  the  same  time,  quite 
important.  We  find  the  "mother  Church"  prescribing  a 
creed  which  the  daughter  has  altogether  discarded  !  Again, 
we  find  the  young  daughter,  hardly  yet  got  to  housekeeping, 
grown  more  bold  and  presumptuous  than  her  somewhat  ven- 
erable mother,  and  daring  to  alter  or  set  aside  a  whole  article 
of  the  creed  which  she  received.  The  daughter  thus  rejects 
one  ci'eed  entire,  while  she  alters  or  omits  a  part  of  another! 
And  yet  both  mother  and  daughter  are  sometimes  represented 
as  one  in  doctrine  I  The  permission  given  in  ' '  the  Ameri- 
can Rubric"  to  omit  the  article  specified,  frequently  occasions 
a  discordant  profession  of  faith  in  the  public  congregations. 
When  the  minister  says,  He  descended  into  hell,  a  part  of  the 

*  The  reader  will  find  these  quotations  given  at  length  in  a  work 
entitled  "Faith  of  Catholics,"  which  may  be  had  at  any  Catholic 
bookstore. 


142  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

congregation  will  follow  him,  while  others  will  say  "He' 
went  into  the  place  of  departed  spirits,"  and  a  third  party 
will  keep  their  mouths  closed  and  say  nothing.  On  the  other 
hand,  when  the  minister  says  He  icent  into  the  j^^ftce  of  de- 
parted sjnrits,  some  of  the  congregation  will  be  heard  to  say, 
He  descended  into  hcU,  while  others  will  remain  silent.  Sui-e- 
ly  this  is  not  glorifying  God,  with  "one  mouth"  and  in 
"  unity  of  faith,"  as  the  Scriptures  command. 

I  have  said  that  the  rubric  in  the  English  Prayer-Book 
requires  the  Apostles'  Creed  to  be  used,  "  except  only  such 
days  as  the  creed  of  St.  Athanasius  is  appointed  to  be  read." 
Turning  over  a  few  pages  in  that  book,  I  find  the  latter  creed 
placed  between  the  Evening  Prayer  and  the  Litany,  and 
headed  by  a  rubric  specifying  the  festivals  and  Saints'  Days 
upon  which  ' '  this  confession  of  our  Christian  fiiith ,  conuuonly 
called  the  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius,"  shall  be  used.  Now,  as 
"  this  confession  of  our  Christian  faith,"  as  it  is  there  called, 
has  been  left  out  of  your  American  Prayer-Book  entirely, 
you  have  utterly  discarded  and  repudiated  it.  Your  "  faith," 
therefore,  cannot  be  said  to  be  the  same  as  that  of  your 
mother  Church.  In  consequence  of  this  omission,  this  creed 
is  almost  entirely  unknown  to  the  Episcopalians  of  this  coun- 
try ;  and  it  may  be  well  to  take  this  opportunity  to  bring  it 
before  them.  It  is  too  lengthy,  however,  for  me  to  introduce 
it  here  ;  I  shall  therefore  only  cite  such  portions  of  it  as  seem 
most  appropriate.  The  creed  opens  with  this  strong  declara- 
tion : — 

"Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  neces- 
sary that  he  should  hold  the  Catholic  faith.  Which  faith,  ex- 
cept every  one  do  keep  whole  and  undefiled,  without  doubt  he 
shall  perish  everlastingly." 

It  then  proceeds  to  define  what  this  Catholic  faith  is,  set- 
ting forth  the  Unity  and  Trinity  of  the  Godhead,  the  peculiar 
qualities  or  attributes  of  each  of  the  three  persons,  together 
with  the  mode  of  their  being,  the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  and 
how  He  is  both  God  and  Man,  and  yet  one.  After  stating 
these  and  some  other  points  in  the  most  precise  terms,  it  con- 
cludes with  this  emphatic  declaration  : — 

' '  This  is  the  Catholic  faith ;  which  except  a  man  believe 
faithfully,  he  cannot  be  saved." 

Here  you  see  your  mother  Church  declaring  the  ' '  Catho- 
lic faith"  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,  including  in  that 
faith  an  exact  and  faithful  belief  in  the  mysteries  of  the  Trin- 


LETTER    V 


143 


ity  and  luearuatiou  ;  and  yet  the  authorities  of  your  Church 
have  expressly  rejected  this  confession  of  faith !  This  doc- 
trinal discrepancy  between  the  mother  and  the  daughter,  is 
rendered  the  more  striking  by  a  reference  to  the  ' '  Articles  of 
Religion"  contained  in  the  Prayer-Book.  The  eighth  arti- 
cle, as  held  in  the  English  Church,  says,  "  The  three  creeds, 
Nice  Creed,  Athanasius  Creed,  and  that  which  is  commonly 
called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  ought  thoroughly  to  be  received 
and  believed."  Now  if  you  turn  to  the  eighth  article  in 
your  American  Prayer-Book,  you  will  find  no  mention  made 
of  the  AtJi((n((,'<i'(n  Creed — it  is  wholly  left  out.  It  merely 
says  that  the  Nicene  and  Apostles'  Creed  ought  to  be  re- 
ceived. Your  mother  Church  expressly  declares  "  the  Atha- 
nasius Creed  ought  thoroughly  to  be  received  and  believed." 
But  in  the  face  of  this  declaration  you  discard  that  creed  from 
your  Prayer-Book,  and  refuse  to  recognize  it  in  any  way  L 
Here,  then,  the  two  churches  are  directly  at  variance;  and 
that,  too,  in  regard  to  the  reception  of  a  creed. 

St.  Athanasius,  whose  name  this  ci'ced  bears,  flourished  in 
the  fourth  century.  But  he  is  not  the  author  of  it,  but  some 
one  of  a  later  age.  It  is  named  after  him,  either  because 
compiled  from  his  writings,  or  because  he  was  a  special  cham- 
pion of  the  doctrines  it  embodies.  Some  have  ascribed  its 
origin  to  the  fifth  century,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  it 
originated  in  the  seventh  or  eighth  century.  A  high  Ang- 
lican authority.  Bishop  Burnet,  says,  "  it  was  never  heard 
of  before  the  eighth  centur3^"  {Expos.  Thirtij-Nine  Arti- 
cles— 8th  Artie.)  This  expression  is  rather  too  strong,  for 
we  fiiid  mention  made  of  it  in  the  Council  of  Autun,  held 
in  the  year  670 — but  it  cannot  be  much  older  than  that 
date.  The  date  of  its  origin  is  of  some  importance  in  the 
controversy  between  Anglicanism  and  the  Catholic  Church. 
It  is  alleged  that  after  the  fourth  century,  the  Church  be- 
came corrupt  and  unreliable,  and  that  Anglicanism  restored 
the  Church  to  the  purity  of  the  early  ages,  repudiating  all 
the  additions  and  corruptions  of  a  later  period.  And  yet 
we  find  Anglicanism  accepting  a  creed  which  must  have 
been  composed  long  after  the  period  at  which  the  Church  is 
said  to  have  become  corrupt.  They  tell  us  that  they  t:vke 
for  their  rule,  the  Church  of  the  first  three  or  four  centuries. 
And  yet  we  find  them  adopting  a  creed  which  could  not  have 
originated  earlier  than  the  seventh  or  eighth  century.  They 
declaim  most  vehemently  against  the  ' '  later  additions  which 
13* 


144  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Rome  has  made  to  the  creed,"  and  yet  we  find  tliem  accepting" 
the  precise  and  rigid  definitions  of  the  Athanasian  creed,  as 
essential  to  salvation,  although  that  creed  is  confessedly  a 
later  addition.  They  bitterly  inveigh  against  the  "  anathemas 
and  damnatory  clauses  found  in  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  and  at  the  same  time  accept  the  denunciatory  language 
of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  declaring  every  one  who  fails  to 
"keep  it  whole  and  undefiled,  shall  perish  everlastingly," 
and  also  in  their  "  Commination"  service,  pronounce  curse 
after  curse  iipon  different  classes  of  evil-doers.*  They  proudly 
reject  the  solemn  definitions  of  the  General  Council  of  Trent, 
composed  of  the  ablest  divines  of  the  16th  century,  as  modern 
"  additions  to  the  faith,"  and  yet  accept  a  creed  which  is  ex- 
act and  precise  upon  the  most  abstruse  points  in  theology, 
and  which  was  composed  by,  nobody  knows  who,  and  not 
used  in  the  Church  earlier  than  the  seventh  or  eighth  century  I 
And  yet  more  :  while  rejecting  the  decress  of  that  great  and 
venerable  council  of  the  16th  century,  composed  of  represen- 
tatives of  the  Church  in  Italy,  Spain,  France,  Portugal. 
Germany,  Ireland,  and  other  parts  of  the  world,  they  subscribe 
to  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  Religion  devised  and  set  forth  hj 
their  own  little,  isolated  sect!  What  is  this  but  to  "strain 
out  a  gnat  and  swallow  a  camel  ?"  But  this  gross  inconsistency 
is  not  confined  to  ' '  Church  of  England"  men  :  It  is  shared 
in  by  all  American  Episcopalians  who  adopt  the  same  line  of 
argument  or  object  to  what  they  call  the  ' '  modern  addi- 
tions of  Rome."  For  although  they  reject  the  Athanasian 
creed,  and  the  Commination  service,  yet  in  the  first  place  they 
boast  of  their  descent  from  the  Anglican  Church,  and  profess 
to  be  of  the  same  faith  with  it ;  in  the  second  place,  they  re- 
ceive the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  creed,  which  in  some  of  their 
parts  cannot  be  traced  to  that  early  age  which  they  profess  to 
follow  ;  and,  in  the  third  place,  they  receive  the  Thirty-Nine 
Articles  of  religion,  which  had  no  existence  prior  to  the  16th 
century.  Taking  the  primitive  confessions  of  faith  for  our  stan- 
dard, as  these  confessions  were  originally  set  forth,  it  is  admitted 
that  additions  have  been  made  to  them  from  time  to  time,  as  cir- 
cumstances required.  But  I  have  shewn  that  some  of  these 
additions  are  likewise  received  by  Anglicans  and  Episcopalians, 

*  This  service  has  also  been  omitted  in  the  American  Praj-er-Book, 
and  is  consequently  but  little  known  to  Episcopalians  of  this  country. 
It  will  be  noticed  in  a  subsequent  letter. 


h  K  T  T  K  K     V  .  146 

while  they  have  also  invented  others,  such  as  the  Thirty-Nine 
Articles.  How,  then,  can  they  reproach  the  Catholic  for  doing 
what  they  themselves  have  done  V  Besides,  the  Ciitholic  addi- 
tions are  sustained  by  the  authority  of  General  Councils  and 
the  Church  of  various  countries  :  whereas,  they  have  no  author- 
ity for  their  modern  additions  contained  in  the  Thirty-Nine 
Articles,  exce])t  that  of  their  own  circumscribed  sect. 

I  have  already  remarked  that  there  are  two  creeds  in  your 
Morning  and  Evening  ]*rayer,  either  of  whicli  may  be  used 
at  the  discretion  of  the  officiating  minister,  one  of  which  is 
called  the  "  Apostles  Creed,"  tlie  other  has  no  name  assigned 
it  in  the  service,  although  it  is  well  known  as  the  Nicene  or 
Constantinopolitan  Creed.  The  former  of  these  creeds  is 
most  generally  used,  the  latter  but  seldom,  althougli  lioth  are 
equally  authorized  by  the  rubrics  and  articles  of  your  Prayer- 
Book.  I  desire  to  offer  a  few  observations,  first  upon  the 
history  of  these  creeds,  and  secondly  upon  a  few  of  their  arti- 
cles or  doctrines. 

The  term  ' '  Creed"  is  derived  from  the  first  word  used  in 
the  original  Latin,  Credo,  I  believe,  and  of  course  means 
that  which  is  believed.  The  Apostles  Creed  is  undoubtedly 
the  most  ancient  symbol  or  Confession  of  Faith  ever  used  in 
the  Church.  Indeed,  some  have  held  the  opinion  tliat  it  was 
actually  composed  by  the  Apostles,  each  of  the  twelve  Apos- 
tles assembled  together,  supplying  one  of  its  twelve  articles. 
But  this  opinion  is  discarded  by  the  highest  authorities.  It 
is  called  the  Ajwstlcs'  Creed,  not  because  composed  by  them, 
but  because  it  includes  a  brief  summary  of  their  principal 
doctrines.  But  when  we  assign  it  a  very  great  antiquity,  it 
is  not  in  its  present  entire  form .  As  cited  in  the  earliest  wri- 
tings of  the  fathers,  it  is  considerably  shorter  than  it  is  now, 
and  does  not  contain  several  of  its  present  articles.  To  this 
feet  I  have  already  alluded  in  my  preceding  remarks ;  and  as 
it  is  a  fact  of  much  importance  in  this  discussion,  the  reader 
has  a  right  to  ask  for  some  proof  to  sustain  it,  although  the 
fact  is  well  known  to  all  who  have  made  such  subjects  their 
study.  In  establishing  the  fact,  I  shall  make  use  solely  of 
Protestant  authorities,  authorities  either  of  the  Church  of 
England  or  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church. 

Let  me  begin  then,  with  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Wra. 
Goode,  of  the  "Church  of  England."  In  his  learned  and 
able  work  on  the  "Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice," 
you  will  find  him  maintaining  these  two  propositions : 


146  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

"  That  what  is  called  the  "  Apostles  Creed,  ''is  merely  the 
ancient  creed  of  the  Church  C'f  Some,  and  no  more  entitled 
to  the  name  (Apostles')  than  any  other  of  the  ancient  creeds." 

"That  what  is  called  the  "Apostles  Creed,"  gradually 
attained  its  present  form,  and  that  two  at  least  of  the  articles 
it  now  contains,  were  not  inserted  in  it  before  the  fourth  cen- 
tury."    (Vol.  i.,  chap,  iv.) 

In  the  first  of  these  propositions,  Mr.  Goode  asserts  that, 
this  creed  is,  strictly  speakings  the  Roman  Creed.  This  assei'- 
tion  will  probably  disturb  the  equanamity  of  those  among  you 
who  have  so  much  dread  of  every  thing  Roman — although 
its  correctness  cannot  be  questioned.  In  the  second  proposi- 
tion, he  asserts  that  this  creed  gradually  attained  its  present 
form,  and  that  two  at  least  of  its  articles,  were  not  inserted 
prior  to  the  fourth  century.  These  two  articles  are  :  "He  de- 
scended into  Hell,"  and  "  The  Communion  of  Saints.'"  He 
also  maintains,  that  the  word  "  Catholic,"  was  not  originally 
in  the  creed. 

Bishoj)  Pearson,  of  the  Church  of  England,  whose  "Ex- 
position of  the  Creed"  is  a  text-book  in  the  Episcopalian  The- 
ological Seminaries,  says : 

"  The  former  part  of  this  article,  of  the  descent  into  hell, 
hath  not  been  so  anciently  in  the  creed,  or  so  universally  as 
the  rest.  The  first  place  we  find  it  used  in,  was  the  Church 
of  Aquileia ;  and  the  time  we  are  sure  it  was  used  in  the 
creed  of  that  Church,  was  less  than  400  years  after  Christ." 
(Art.  V.) 

In  regard  to  the  term  "  Catholic"  in  the  article  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  Bishop  Pearson  says:  "Now,  the  word 
Catholick,  as  it  is  not  read  in  the  Scriptures,  so  was  it  not  an- 
tiently  in  the  creed,  as  we  have  already  shewn."     (Art.  ix.) 

In  regard  to  the  Communion  of  Saints,  he  says:  "This 
part  of  the  article  beareth  something  a  later  date  than  any  of 
the  rest,  but  yet  is  no  way  inferior  to  the  other  in  relation  to 
the  certainty  of  the  truth  thereof."     (^Ibid.) 

But,  not  to  multiply  quotations  upon  a  point  so  well  known 
to  the  learned,  let  me  cite  but  one  author  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country.  The  Rev.  Wm.  Staunton,  in  his 
Dictionary  of  the  Church,  says  :  "  Originally,  the  creed  had 
fewer  articles  than  at  present ;  for  in  the  copies  as  given  by 
these  writers,  (of  antiquity)  the  descent  into  hell,  the  com- 
munion of  saints,  and  the  life  everlasting,  are  not  included. 
These  were  points,  however,  fully  believed  by  the  early  Chris- 


L  K  T  T  E  U     V  .  147 

tians,  but  were  not  embodied  iu  the  creed  until  the  third  or 
fourth  century,  when  this  became  necessary  to  counteract  some 
doctrinal  errors,  which  at  that  time  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
Church."     (See  Creed,  Apostles'.) 

These  authorities  will  be  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  as  now  u.sed  in  your  Prayer-Book,  is  not  such  as 
it  was  originally ;  that  several  articles  were  added  to  it  at  a 
later  date,  as  circumstances  required.  It  is  evident  then,  that 
there  was  at  that  early  period,  a  gradual  enlargement  of  the 
creed.  In  its  original  form  it  can  scarcely  be  traced  further 
back  than,  A.  D.  200.  And  yet  we  find,  that  by  the  year 
400,  there  had  been  added  to  it  two  or  three  new  articles, 
more  than  one  for  each  centmy.  Had  the  Chuix-h,  in  every 
subsequent  age,  continued  to  add  to  the  creed  at  the  same 
rate,  it  would  now  contain  some  twenty  more  articles  than 
it  does !  Now,  my  friend,  if  you  receive  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  notwithstanding  the  additions  which  were  made  to  it 
long  after  its  first  appearance,  is  it  not  very  inconsistent  to 
object  to  the  Catholic  Church  because  she  has  made  additions 
to  the  ancient  formularies  of  the  faith  ?  If  you  give  your 
sanction  to  the  additions  which  were  made  between  the  second 
and  the  fourth  century,  why  reject  the  idea  of  additions  dur- 
ing  the  long  ages  that  have  elapsed  since  ?  If  the  Church, 
when  according  to  your  theory  she  was  free  from  corruption, 
made  additions  to  the  creed,  there  can  be  nothing  wroug  per 
se  in  the  mere  act  of  making  additions.  The  fact  is,  the 
Church  in  every  age,  has  only  acted  as  did  the  Church  of  the 
first  three  or  four  centuries  ;  and,  you  cannot  condenm  in  the 
later  Church  that  which  you  approve  in  the  earlier  Church. 
The  Catholic  Church  has,  in  every  age,  simply  acted  on  the 
principle  expressed  in  the  passage  above  cited  ti-om  Mr.  Staun- 
ton ;  she  has  defined  this  or  that  doctrine  to  be  an  article  of 
faith,  "when  this  became  necessary  to  counteract  some  doc- 
trinal errors,  which  at  that  time  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
Church."  Thus  she  acted  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  thus 
she  acted  more  recently  when  she  proclaimed  the  doctrine  of 
the  Immaculate  Conception  to  be  a  dogma  of  the  faith,  taking 
care  always,  however,  to  define  as  such  only  what  has  been 
handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  although  not  previously  em- 
bodied in  the  creed. 

Much  objection  has  been  made  by  writers  of  a  certain  class, 
against  the  ''anathemas  of  Trent."  Such  writers  appear  to 
be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  the  Council  of  Trent  in  thus 


148  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

pronouncing  a  solemn  judgment  against  errorists,  only  fol- 
lowed in  the  steps  of  all  preceding  general  councils,  including 
the  first  ever  held.  The  creed  originally  framed  at  the 
Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  concluded  by  "anathematizing" 
all  who  taught  contrary  to  the  points  then  defined.  The 
second  Greneral  Council  at  Constantinople,  A.  D.  381,  in  its 
synodal  epistle  to  the  emperor,  "anathematized  the  here- 
tics."  {See  Hammond'' s  Definitions  of  Faith.') 

Remarks  of  like  tenor  with  the  foregoing,  may  be  made 
respecting  the  other  Creed  contained  in  your  Moi'ning  and 
Evening  Prayer,  which  is  sometimes,  but  very  rarely  used  in 
place  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  This  creed  is  commonly  called 
the  Nicene  Creed,  because  it  was  composed,  in  part,  by  the 
first  General  Council,  held  at  Nice,  A.  D.  325.  But  consid- 
erable additions  were  afterwards  made  to  this  creed  at  diflFer- 
ent  periods,  and  which  additions  your  Church  has  sanctioned, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  by  retaining  them  in 
the  Prayer-Book.  These  additions  were  made  chiefly  at  the 
second  General  Council,  held  at  Constantinople,  A.  1).  381 : 
and  hence  this  creed  is  frequently  and  more  correctly  called 
the  Constantinopolitan  Creed.  But  a  further  addition  was 
made  to  it  at  a  much  later  period,  by  the  insertion  of  the 
words  and  the  Son,,  making  the  Holy  Ghost  to  proceed  from 
the  Son  as  well  as  from  the  Father.*  This  addition  has 
proved  to  be  one  of  much  importance,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
the  chief  cause  of  the  separation  of  the  Greeks  from  the  Ca- 
tholic Church.  But  your  Chui'ch,  in  retaining  these  words, 
sustains  the  Catholic  Church  and  condemns  the  Greeks ;  and 
I  may  add,  in  accordance  with  the  above  reasoning,  condemns 
herself  too,  if  she  professes  to  receive,  as  articles  of  faith, 
only  what  is  expressly  contained  in  the  original  creeds  of  the 
Primitive  Church. f 


*  According  to  Bishop  Pearson,  of  the  Anglican  Church,  the  addi- 
tion oi  filioque  ("  and  the  Son"  )  was  made  by  Pope  Nicolas  I.  ;  that 
is,  in  the  ninth  century.  [Exposition  of  the  Creed,  London  edition, 
1835,  p.  473,  note.)  Consequently,  the  Prayer-Book  sanctions  an  addi- 
tion made  to  the  creed  by  a  Pope,  and  a  Pope,  too,  of  the  so-called 
' '  dark  ages  ! ' ' 

"j"  In  reference  to  the  additions  made  to  the  Nicene  Creed,  see  the  au- 
thorities above  cited,  viz:  Burnet  and  Staunton,  and  also  Hammond's 
Definitions  of  Faith,  in  which  the  Creed  adopted  at  Nice,  and  that  at 
Constantinople,  are  both  given  in  full. 


I,  E  T  T  E  K     V  .  149 

Let  me  now  prneeed  to  make  u  few  remarks  upon  some  of 
the  doctrines  whitli  you  })rofess  in  these  two  creeds. 

"When  you  recite  the  Apostles'  Creed,  among  tlie  doctrines 
which  you  profess  concerning  Christ,  is  this :  Ife  thscended 
into  hell.  This  doctrine  is  also  asserted  in  your  third  Article 
of  Keligiou,  which  reads  thus:  "As  Christ  died  for  us  and 
was  buried,  so  also  is  it  to  be  believed  that  He  went  down 
into  hell.''  Here,  I  say,  is  the  same  doctrine  in  preci.sely  the 
same  words.  ]3ut  before  we  proceed  to  inijuire  int<j  its  mean- 
ing, let  me  direct  your  attention  to  a  singidar  fact  connected 
with  this  subject.  The  rubric  in  your  American  Prayer- 
Book  (but  not  in  the  English)  permits  "any  churches  to 
omit''  this  part  of  the  creed.  And  yet.  when  I  turn  to  your 
Thirty-Xine  Articles,  I  read  the  declaration  above  cited,  viz  : 
"  so  also  is  it  to  he  helieccd  that  He  went  down  into  hell  I" 
Here  is  a  most  extraordinary  discrepancy.  The  third  article 
declares  that  the  doctrine  <'.>>'  to  he  heliead.  The  rubric  of  the 
Morning  and  Evening  ]*rayer  says  it  need  not  be  ))elieved : 
"  any  churches  may  omit  it."  Will  you  do  me  the  favor  to 
reconcile  these  contradictory  assertions  Y  When  your  Ameri- 
can revisers  inserted  this  permission  in  the  rubric,  they  must 
have  lost  sight  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  Religion.  Or 
rather,  when  the  articles  were  finally  adopted  in  1801,  they 
seem  to  have  overlooked  the  permission  which  they  had  given 
in  the  rubric.  But  in  whatever  way  the  discrepancy  oc- 
curred, the  rubric  and  the  article  are  at  variance  with  each 
other.  The  question  therefore  arises,  which  shall  give  way 
to  the  other  ?  As  the  articles  were  adopted  at  a  later  period, 
we  presume  they  are  to  have  most  weight,  as  an  older  law 
gives  place  to  one  of  a  more  recent  date. 

As,  then,  the  doctrine  that  Christ  descendrd  into  hell  "is 
to  be  believed,"  let  me  ask  you  what  is  meant  by  that  doc- 
trine as  professed  by  the  members  of  your  Church  ?  The 
rubric  already  referred  to,  says  it  means  that  lie  went  into 
the  place  of  deported  spirits.  This  throws  some  light  upon 
the  subject,  although  it  does  not  render  it  perfectly  clear,  nor 
does  it  exactly  square  with  the  declaration  of  the  article,  that 
"  He  went  dovm  into  hell."  However,  my  desire  is  not  to 
put  an  interpretation  of  my  own  upon  this  doctrine,  but  sim- 
ply to  understand  what  is  meant  by  it  in  your  Church.  In 
order  to  arrive  at  this  point,  the  proper  course  is  to  inquire 
how  it  is  expounded  by  the  .standard  divines  of  your  Church. 
Let  us  then  refer  to  two  or  three  wlu»  have  written  upon  the 


150  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

subject,  and  whose  authority  in  such  matters  is  recognized 
both  in  the  Anglican  and  your  own  Chm-ch — I  mean  Bishops 
Pearson  and  Burnet.  The  former  of  these  eminent  authors, 
after  examining  the  subject  at  great  length,  concludes  from 
the  Scriptures  and  from  the  fathers  of  the  Church — "  That 
the  soul  of  Christ,  really  separated  from  His  body  by  death, 
did  truly  pass  into  the  j^laces  below,  where  the  souls  of  men 
departed  were."  Again  :  "And  being  He  died  in  the  simili- 
tude of  a  sinner.  His  soul  went  to  the  place  where  the  souls 
of  men  are  kept  who  die  for  their  sins,  and  so  did  wholly  im- 
dergo  the  law  of  death."  (Expos,  of  Creed,  Art.  V.)  The  ex- 
planation of  Burnet  is  similar  :  ' '  But  that  His  soul  was  really 
removed  out  of  His  body,  and  carried  to  those  unseen  re- 
gions of  departed  spirits,  among  whom  it  continued  until  His 
resurrection."  {Expos,  of  Thirty-Nine  ArtieJes,  Art.  IH.) 
It  will  be  seen  that  these  expositions  are,  by  no  means, 
very  clear  ;  and  indeed,  amount  to  little  more  than  the  words 
allowed  by  the  Kubric,  to  be  used  in  place  of  those  in  the 
creed.  We  are  merely  told  that  the  soul  of  Christ  icent  into 
the  plciee  of  departed  spirits.  The  nature  of  that  place,  or 
the  character  of  its  inhabitants,  are  matters  left  wholly  unex- 
plained. But  both  of  these  divines  agree,  that  this  "place 
of  departed  spirits"  was  not  "hell"  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
the  term,  that  is,  the  abode  of  the  damned.  Nor  do  these 
writers  pretend  that  that  place  was  Heaven,  nor  does  any  one 
so  far  as  I  know,  so  assert ;  for  such  a  notion  is  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  the  language  of  the  creed,  deseendit  ad  inferna 
OY  ad  inferos,  ''^e  descended  inio  hell."  Whatever  mean- 
ing may  be  correctly  applied  to  the  term  "Hell,"  the  word 
descended,  cannot  possibly  refer  to  our  Lord's  passage  into 
heaven.  The  language  of  your  third  article  is  similar — 
"He  icent  doicn.  into  Hell,"  ad  inferos  descendisse.  This 
equally  precludes  the  idea  of  heaven.  Besides,  our  Lord's 
ascension  into  heaven  is  afterwards  affirmed  in  a  subsecjuent 
part  of  the  creed,  thus,  "the  third  day  he  arose  from  the 
dead ;  He  ascended  into  heaven."  The  creed  first  declares 
his  burial,  then  his  descent  into  hell,  and  next  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  lastly  his  ascension  into  heaven.  His  descent  into 
hell  is  distinct  from  his  burial,  and  also  from  his  ascension 
into  heaven,  it  is  therefore  a  separate  occurrence,  and  refers 
to  a  distinct  place.  If,  then,  the  soul  of  Christ,  between  his 
burial  and  his  ascension — went  to  some  other  place,  and  if 
that  place  was  neither  the  abode  of  the  lost  spirits,  nor  the 


"  LETTEU     V.  151 

ubode  of  the  just  in  heaven,  it  necessarily  follows  that  there 
must  be  an  intermediate  place.  And  if  there  be  an  interme- 
diate place,  we  have  in  that  place  a  foundation  for  the  Catho- 
lic doctrine  of  a  purgatory,  where  the  souls  of  the  redeemed 
are  detained  until  purged  from  the  last  stain  of  sin,  and  fitted 
to  enter  the  Divine  presence,  a  doctrine  conformable  to  rea- 
son, to  Scripture,  and  to  the  ancient  fathers. 

Before  I  quit  this  point,  I  must  make  one  other  observa- 
tion. The  doctrine  of  the  descent  into  heJl  was  evidently  a 
disagreeable  one  to  the  American  revisers  of  your  Prayer- 
Book,  and  even  to  this  day  it  is  a  source  of  considerable  an- 
noyance to  not  a  few  of  your  members.  For  this  reason  you 
are  allowed  to  substitute  other  words  for  it,  and  even  to  omit 
it  altogether  at  your  option.  And  yet  this  is  a  doctrine  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  admitted  to  be  such  by  your  own 
divines  and  theologians.  Bishop  Pearson,  in  his  work  just 
cited,  not  only  admits  it  to  be  such,  but  quotes  various  pas- 
sages from  the  Bible  to  prove  it.  He  says  :  ' '  Now  several 
places  of  Scripture  have  been  produced  by  the  ancients  as  de- 
livering this  truth,  of  which  some  without  question  prove  it 
not;  hut  three  there  are  ichich  have  heen  alicai/s  thought  of 
greatest  validiti/  to  confirm  this  coiicle."  (^Expos.  of  Creed, 
p.  336.)  The  bishop  then  proceeds  to  cite  several  passages  in 
proof  of  this  doctrine,  such  as  Eph.  iv.  9,  and  Acts  ii.  25-31. 
And  yet  this  article,  deduced  by  your  own  divines  from  the 
Bible,  your  Prayer-Book  allows  "any  chmx-he.s"'  to  ignore 
and  suppress  I  Surely,  this  is  not  taking  the  Bible  for  your 
rule  of  faitb. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  another  article  of  your  belief,  as  con- 
tained in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  vir:  the  Communion  of  Saints. 
In  a  preceding  portion  of  these  remarks,  I  dwelt  at  some 
length  upon  this  interesting  doctrine,  and  the  truths  to  be  de- 
duced from  it.  I  shall,  therefore,  do  but  little  more  here  than 
cite  two  or  three  of  your  own  divines  in  confirmation  of  the 
views  which  I  have  there  advanced.  Bishop  Pearson,  in  his 
able  work  on  the  creed,  already  referred  to,  after  showing  that 
all  who  are  called  and  baptized  in  the  Church  were  termed 
"  saints"  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  proceeds  to 
expound  this  article  as  follows : 

"  Lastly,  the  Saints  of  God  living  in  the  Church  of  Christ, 

are  in  communion  with  all  the  saints  departed  out  of  this  life, 

and  admitted  to  the  presence  of  God.     *    *    *    Indeed,  the 

Communion  of  Saints  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  with  those 

U 


152  LETTERS  'to    AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 

which  are  departed,  is  demonstrated  by  their  communion  with 
the  saints  alive.  For  if  I  have  communion  with  a  Saint  of 
God,  as  such,  while  he  liveth  here,  I  must  still  have  commu- 
nion with  him  when  he  is  departed  hence ;  because  the  foun- 
dation of  that  communion  cannot  be  removed  by  death." 
(Ejc2ms.  of  Creed,  p.  517.) 

Mr.  Staunton,  in  his  Dictionary  of  the  Church,  advances 
similar  sentiments  in  the  following  language :  » 

' '  Shall  we  say  there  is  no  spiritual  union  between  us  and 
those  who  have  finished  their  course  ?  Is  the  Communion  of 
Saints  limited  to  the  borders  of  this  lonely  planet  V  Is  there 
no  ladder  of  communication,  by  which  (like  the  angels  in  the 
patriarch's  dream)  we  may  ascend  to  the  regions  of  triumph- 
ant immortality  ?  Is  the  body  of  Christ  divided,  and  are  the 
conquerors  above  separated  from  the  valiant  soldier  below,  by 
a  barrier  impenetrable  to  the  eye  of  faith  ?  Is  the  silken  cord 
snapped  asunder  which  binds  the  Church  in  glory  to  the 
Church  in  probation?  No!  but  the  family  of  God  is  one, 
indivisable — extending  to  both  worlds.  Death  is  powerless 
to  separate  what  God  has  joined  together.  *  *  *  And  if 
the  dissolution  of  the  body  produce  any  change  in  the  relation 
of  the  spirits  of  the  living  to  those  of  the  dead,  we  see  not 
how  it  can  be,  but  by  the  enlarging  and  strengthening  of  for- 
mer intercourse."     (See  "  Com.  of  ASaintsJ') 

Hence,  it  is  clear  from  the  statements  of  your  own  standard 
writers,  that  when  yovi  profess  to  believe  in  the  "  Communion 
of  the  Saints,"  you  mean  by  that  article  that  there  is  a  fellow- 
ship and  intercourse  kept  up  between  the  members  of  the 
Church  on  earth,  and  the  departed  saints  in  heaven.  But 
this  doctrine,  as  I  have  shewn  elsewhere,  is  but  the  foundation 
of  the  Catholic  practice  of  the  invocation  of  saints.  The  one 
is  only  a  practical  development  of  the  other.  Hence,  to 
receive  one  and  reject  the  other,  is  a  palpable  inconsistency. 
In  fact,  one  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  other.  The  terms 
"  communion,"  "  fellowship,"  "  intercourse,"  have  ajrracticcd 
meaning.  If  there  be  any  thing  of  the  sort,  it  is  not  an 
abstract  idea,  but  an  actual,  real,  practical  thing.  To  believe 
in  the  "Communion  of  Saints,"  and  yet  to  have  no  such 
communion  or  fellowship  or  intercourse,  is  merely  to  admit  an 
abstract  theory.  If  truly  and  correctly  believed,  the  doctrine 
must  be  realized,  must  be  reduced  to  practice.  Among  Ca- 
tholics it  is  thus  realized,  by  the  invocation  of  saints  and  by 
the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  the  altar.     This  is  the  ' '  ladder  of 


LETTER     V.  153 

communication,"  like  Jacob's,  by  which  constant  intercourse 
is  kept  up  between  the  saints  above,  and  the  faithful  on  earth. 
But  this  "  ladder"  you  refuse  to  make  use  of,  and  hence  you 
do  not,  and  cannot  realize  the  doctrine  of  the  Communion  of 
Saints.  If  recognized  among  you  at  all,  it  is  only  in 
theory,  only  as  a  cold,  abstract  truth.  Indeed,  as  to  the  mass 
of  your  members,  it  is  scarcely  even  that — and  the  article  in 
the  creed  is  a  vague,  unmeaning  declaration.  The  truth  is 
professed  as  a  mere  form  by  the  lips,  but  it  is  not  felt  by  the 
heart,  nor  realized  in  the  devotions  of  daily  life.  How  dififer- 
ent  was  the  conduct  of  those  ancient  Christians  of  the  early 
ages,  whom  you  profess  to  follow.  They,  like  the  Catholic 
of  the  present  day,  not  only  professed  this  doctrine,  but  re- 
duced it  to  practice.  They  regarded  the  communion  or  inter- 
course of  saints  as  a  real,  actual  thing.  They  felt  it  to  be 
such,  and  made  it  such,  by  calling  upon  departed  saints  to 
aid  them  by  their  prayers.  See  this  exemplified  in  the  lan- 
guage of  St.  C}'prian,  a  bishop  and  martyr  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, and  one  who  has  a  place  in  the  calendar  of  the  English 
Prayer-Book.  "  Let  us  be  mindful,"  says  he,  addressing  St. 
CorneHus  in  exile,  "  of  one  another  in  our  prayers;  with  one 
mind  and  with  one  heart,  in  this  world  and  in  the  next,  let  us 
always  pray,  with  mutual  charity,  relieving  our  sufferings  and 
afflictions.  And  may  the  charity  of  him,  who,  by  the  divine 
favor,  shall  first  depart  hence  still  persevere  before  the  Lord ; 
may  his  prayer  for  our  brethren  and  sisters,  not  cease." 
(Epist.  h-ii.)  Hear,  too,  what  this  venerable  martyr  says  in 
his  exhortation  to  the  Virqinx.  the  nuns  of  his  day:  "En- 
dm'e  bravely,  advance  spiritually,  arrive  happily :  then  re- 
member us,  when  the  single  state  which  you  haA-e  embraced, 
shall  begin  to  be  rewarded."  (Be  Hahifu  Vii'</.)  Listen, 
too,  to  St.  Ambrose,  another  saint  of  the  English  calendar, 
addressing  widows :  ' '  Thou  hast  friends  who  may  intercede 
for  thee.  These  are  the  apostles  and  martp's.  It  is  not  the 
nearness  of  blood,  but  the  relationship  of  Airtuc  that  forms 
this  fi-iendship.  Associate  thyself,  therefore,  witli  Peter  and 
Andrew,  that  they  may  pray  for  thee,  and  thy  bad  desires 
may  cease."  Again  :  "  The  angels,  who  are  appointed  to  be 
our  guardians,  must  be  invoked ;  and  the  martyrs  likewise, 
whose  bodies  seem  to  be  a  pledge  for  their  patronage.  They, 
who  in  their  blood  washed  away  every  stain  of  sin,  can  im- 
plore forgiveness  for  us ;  they  ai"e  our  guides,  and  the  behold- 


154  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

ers  of  our  lives  and  actions;  to  them,  therefore,  we  should' 
not  blush  to  have  recourse."     (^Lih.  de  Viditis.) 

I  might  proceed  in  this  way  to  make  quotations  without 
end,  from  the  writings  of  ancient  bishops  and  martyrs,  men 
who  are  honored  as  saints  in  the  English  calendar,  showing 
that  with  them  the  Communion  of  Saints,  involved  the  invo- 
cation of  Saints,  if  I  had  room  for  them.  I  give  you  these 
as  specimens.  You  see  that  while  they  believed  in  the  guar- 
dianship of  angels,  and  the  communion  of  saints,  as  your 
Prayer-Book  teaches  you  to  do,  they  believed  in  them  as 
practical  truths,  they  felt  it  to  be  alike  their  duty  and  their 
privilege  to  invoke  those  holy  beings,  by  whom  they  were  sur- 
rounded, and  with  whom  they  held  sweet  communion.  You 
see  they  grounded  their  practice  upon  the  very  argument  I 
urged  when  treating  upon  this  point  in  a  former  letter.  ' '  The 
angels  and  saints,"  says  St.  Ambrose,  ' '  are  our  guides  and 
the  beholders  of  our  lives  and  actions ;  to  them,  therefore,  we 
should  not  blush  to  have  recourse,"  that  is  for  help.  This  is 
sound  reasoning,  and  no  one  can  honestly  escape  from  the 
conclusion  who  holds  what  is  taught  in  your  Prayer-Book. 

Let  me  now  direct  your  attention  to  a  few  of  the  articles 
contained  in  the  other  creed,  which  you  have  retained  in 
your  Prayer-Book  ;  that  is,  the  Nicene,  or  rather  Constanti- 
nopolitan  Creed.  I  begin  by  asking  your  attention  to  your 
belief  as  therein  expressed,  concerning  our  Divine  Saviour. 
You  there  declare  Him  to  be  ' '  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God, 
begotten  of  His  Father  before  all  worlds ;  God  of  God,  Light 
of  Light,  Very  God  of  Very  God,  begotten  not  made,  being 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father."  Consider  the  import  of 
these  words.  They  teach  the  abstruse  doctrines  of  the  eter- 
nal generation  of  the  Son,  and  of  His  consubstantiality  with 
the  Father — doctrines  involving  the  most  difficult  points  in 
the  Trinity  of  the  Godhead.  Now  let  me  ask  you  upon  what 
authority  do  you  believe  these  doctrines  ?  Do  you  believe 
them  upon  the  authority  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  which  first 
defined  these  doctrines  in  these  very  words.  If  you  do,  then 
you  take  the  Catholic  ground ;  and  if  consistent,  you  must 
receive  likewise  not  only  all  the  teachings  of  this  council,  but 
also  the  teachings  of  the  next  General  Council ;  and  so  of  the 
third  and  fourth,  until  you  come  down  to  that  of  Trent.  In 
short  you  must  give  up  your  Protestant  principle  of  following 
your  own  private  judgment,  and,  like  the  true  Catholic,  sub- 
mit to  the  Church,  and  believe  only  as  she  instructs  you  to  be- 


LETTER     V 


155 


lieve,  neither  more  nor  less.  But  if  you  do  not  believe  these 
doctrines  on  the  authority  of  that  council,  on  what  authority 
do  you  believe  them  V  Will  you  say  you  believe  them  on  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  V  I  know  this  is  the  ground 
taken  by  your  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  the  eighth  of  which  says 
that  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  Creeds  are  to  be  believed,  "  for 
they  may  be  proved  by  naost  certain  warrants  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture." But  this  ground  is  plainly  untenable,  although  it  is 
the  convenient  resort  of  all  impugners  of  orthodox  theology. 
The  doctrines  in  question  are  not  contradictory  to  Scripture ; 
but  that  alone  is  not  enough,  if  we  depend  upon  Scripture 
alone  for  our  authority.  These  doctrines  are  of  the  greatest 
moment.  They  are  a  part  of  the  great  fundamental  dogma  of 
the  Holy  Trinity.  And  if  you  believe  them  on  the  sole  au- 
thority of  the  Scriptures,  j'ou  must  have  clear  and  explicit 
declarations  of  Scripture  in  their,  favor.  Can  you  find  such 
declarations  in  the  Scriptures — declarations  precisely  similar 
to  those  in  the  creed  ?  I  am  sure  you  cannot.  The  words  of 
the  creed  were  framed  with  a  view  to  the  condemnation  of 
the  heresy  of  Ai-ius,  a  presbyter  of  Alexandria,  in  Egypt. 
This  man  was  willing  to  receive  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  a  certain  sense ;  he  believed  that  the  Son  was  of  Uhe  sub- 
stance with  the  Father  :  in  fact,  he  was  quite  as  orthodox,  I 
suspect,  as  many  Trinitarians  in  this  country  at  present  are. 
And  he  appealed  to  the  Scriptures,  as  you  do  now,  in  sup- 
port of  his  views,  and  was  willing  to  subscribe  to  any  decla- 
ration upon  the  subject  which  could  be  made  in  the  identical 
language  of  Scripture.  But  that  did  not  satisfy  the  council. 
He  was  required  to  believe  that  the  Son  is  "of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father."  He  refused,  and  became  a  heretic 
and  the  author  of  a  wide-spread  schism.  Do  you  join  with 
the  council  in  condemning  him  ?  If  you  do,  you  condemn 
yourself;  for  he  appealed  to  Scripture  only,  as  you  do,  and 
was  willing  to  believe  all  the  words  of  Scripture  upon  the 
subject.  What  more  can  yon  re(juire  ?  As  long  as  a  nian 
believes  the  very  words  of  Scripture,  you  can  require  nothing 
more.  When  you  go  beyond  that,  you  ask  him  to  believe 
interpretations,  inferences,  deductions  and  such  like,  which 
is  the  province  of  a  Greneral  Council,  and  of  the  Church, 
whose  authority  you  deny.  If,  then,  I  repeat  it,  you  rely 
upon  the  Scriptures  alone,  bring  forth  your  passages  from 
these  holy  writings,  which  clearly  teach  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
not  made,  but  begotten  of  His  Father  before  all  worlds,  and 
14* 


156  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

that  He  was  not  merely  like  Him,  but  of  one  and  the  same 
substance  with  Him.  Your  Thirty-Nine  Articles  declare  that 
these  points,  as  Avell  as  the  rest  of  the  creeds,  ' '  may  be  proved 
by  most  certain  warrants  of  Holy  Scripture."  Now,  the 
phrase  "most  certain  warrants,"  must  mean  clear,  express, 
indubitable  declarations  of  Scripture.  If  there  be  the  least 
ambiguity  about  the  passage,  that  is,  if  it  can  be  fairly  in- 
terpreted in  two  or  three  different  ways — it  cannot  constitute 
a  "  most  certain  warrant,"  because  there  is  doubt  as  to  which 
is  the  true  meaning,  and  where  there  is  doubt  there  can  be  no 
"certainty."  Bring,  then,  your  "most  certain  warrants," 
your  clear  and  express  declarations  of  Scripture  upon  these 
points,  if  you  can  find  them.  You  will  search  the  Bible  in 
vain  for  them.  You  may  find  passages  upon  which,  following 
the  creed,  you  may  now  place  such  interpretations;  and  such 
interpretations  may  now  seem  fiur  and  natural,  because  you 
have  these  ideas  already  fixed  in  your  mind  from  the  creed 
and  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  But  if  the  words  of  Scrip- 
ture be  viewed  apart  from  the  creed  and  the  teaching  of  the 
Church,  you  will  see  that  they  may  be  fairly  interpreted  in  a 
different  way.  The  Unitarians  interpret  them  in  a  different 
way.  They  declare  that  they  do  not  see  in  them  any  such 
doctrines  as  those  asserted  in  the  creed.  Are  they  not  as 
honest  in  their  belief  as  you  are  ?  Do  they  not  deal  as  fairly 
and  honestly  with  the  Scriptures  as  you  do  ?  Yet  they  see  nO' 
such  meaning  in  the  Scriptures  as  you  must  find  there,  if  you 
depend  ujwn  the  Scriptures  alone  for  your  doctrines  concerning 
the  nature  of  Christ.  The  strongest  passage  you  can  adduce 
is  this:  "I  and  my  Father  are  one."  But  these  words  do 
not  necessarily  imply  the  oneness  of  substance  or  essence  as- 
serted in  the  creed.  They  may  mean,  says  the  Unitarian,, 
merely  oneness  of  purpose,  spirit  or  character.  Our  Lord 
said  also:  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I."  This  passage, 
say  the  Unitarians,  show  that  Christ  was  inferior  to  the  Father, 
and  consequently  could  not  have  been  of  the  same  substance 
as  the  creed  teaches.  It  is  plain,  then,  my  friend,  if  you  rely 
upon  the  Scriptures  alone,  you  have  no  "  certain  warrants" 
for  the  deity  of  Christ  as  expressed  in  the  creed.  The  fact  is,, 
the  whole  question  is  one  of  interpretation.  No  one  pretends 
that  the  definitions  of  the  creed  are  found  expressed  in  the 
Scriptures  in  the  veiy  same  words.  Where  is  Christ  called 
in  the  Scriptures  "  God  of  God,  light  of  light,  very  God  of 
very  God?"     No  where.     There  is  no  such  passage.     Where 


LKTTKIl     V.  157 

is  He  said  to  be  "of  one  substance  with  the  Father V"  No 
where  :  there  is  no  such  hinguage  in  any  part  of  the  Bible.* 
You  may  cite  a  passage  which  you  say  means  the  same  thing. 
But  tliat  will  not  do.  I  may  interpret  it  very  differently. 
Which  then  is  right  V  You  cannot  find  the  same  words  m 
Scripture,  and  you  bring  me  other  words  which,  you  say, 
mean  the  same  thing.  You  sai/  they  mean  the  same  thing. 
But,  my  friend,  as  you  are  not  the  authorized  expounder  of 
Scripture,  nor  infallible  in  your  judgment,  you  may  be  mis- 
taken. And  if  you  may  be  mistaken,  you  can  have  no  "cer- 
tain warrant"  for  your  belief.  Even  when  a  doctrine  is  found 
in  the  very  words  tif  Scripture,  there  is  still  a  question  of  in- 
terpretation. But  much  more  is  there  such  a  question,  when 
you  cannot  find  the  identical  words  in  Scripture,  but  resort  to 
others,  which,  yoii  mjj  are  of  the  same  import. 

There  are  other  doctrines  in  the  creed  to  which  this  argu- 
ment may  be  equally  applied.  You  do  not  find  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, clearly  and  expressly  taught,  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  set  forth  in  the  creed  in  the.se  words,  "Who  pro- 
eeedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son."  This  doctrine  is  not 
admitted  by  the  Greek  or  llussian  Church  to  be  a  genuine 
part  of  the  creed,  nor  do  they  receive  it.  But  you  receive  it 
witix  the  Catholics.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceedeth  from  the  Father ;  but  they  nowhere  plainly  assert 
that  He  proceedeth  also  from  the  Son.  Consequently,  you 
cannot  believe  this  portion  of  the  creed  on  the  ground  of  Scrip- 
ture. Upon  what  ground,  then,  do  you  believe  itV  In  the 
Apostles'  Creed  your  belief  on  this  point  was  confined  to  these 
words,  I  heh'eve  in  the  Hohi  Ghost.  Thus  stood  this  article 
in  that  most  ancient  of  all  creeds.  In  the  Nicene  Creed, 
formed  A.  D.  325,  it  was  expressed  in  the  same  words.  But 
at  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.  D.  381,  it  was  consider- 
ably enlarged  by  the  addition  of  new  matter,  and  made  to 
read  as  you  now  have  it :  /  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Lord  and  giver  of  life,  v:ho  jiroceedeth  from  the  Father  arid 
the  Son  :  who  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  together  is  worship- 
ped a)id  glorified ;  who  spalce  hy  the  Fropihets.     Here  are- 

*This  creed  was  originally  composed  by  the  Fathers  at  Nice,  in  the 
Greek  language,  and  the  word  which  they  employed  to  designate  the 
nature  of  Christ,  Homoousion,  is  not  found  in  Greek  Testament  at  all. 
And  yet  that  word,  and  no  other,  was  insisted  on  as  the  symbol  of 
orthodoxy.  This  shows  conclusively,  that  the  creed  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  Scriptures  alone. 


158  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

four  distinct  assertions  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
were  added  to  the  primitive  creeds  towards  the  close  of  the 
fourth  centui'y  ;  but  you  receive  them  all  as  a  portion  of  your 
faith,  notwithstanding  you  jirofess  to  follow  only  the  "primi- 
tive Church,"  and  to  base  your  faith  solely  upon  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  are  silent  concerning  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  from  the  Son.  How  could  you  defend  yourself  in  an 
argument  with  a  member  of  the  Greek  Church  V  He  would 
accuse  you  of  departing  from  the  Scriptures  in  accepting  an 
article  of  faith  not  found  therein,  and  of  departing  from  the 
original  creeds,  and  making  additions  to  the  primitive  faith. 
You  would  find  it  impossible  to  return  a  valid  answer  to  this 
charge.  And  let  me  remind  you  that  the  main  accusation 
which  you  bring  against  the  Catholic  Chvu'ch,  is  precisely 
similar.  You  say  she  has  departed  from  the  Scriptures  and 
the  primitive  creeds  by  her  modern  additions  to  the  faith. 
But  if  she  has  so  departed,  she  has  done  only  what  you  yom*- 
self  have  done.  And  will  you  oppose  her  for  doing  what  you 
have  done '!  But  there  is  this  essential  difference  between 
you  and  us  in  this  respect.  The  argument  is  good  against 
you,  but  not  against  us.  In  departing  from  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Primitive  Church,  you  depart  from  your  own  acknow- 
ledged rule  of  faith,  and  consequently  are  self-condennicd. 
But  such  is  not  the  case  with  the  Catholic  Church.  She  does 
not  profess  to  be  guided  solely  by  the  written  word,  but  in 
part  by  Apostolic  tradition.  And  as  to  any  enlargements  of 
the  creed,  she  has  as  much  right  to  expand  them  as  circum- 
stances may  require,  as  had  the  Church  in  the  Nicene  age — 
for  she  is  the  same  divine  Church,  descending  and  continuing 
through  all  times,  and  preserving  unimpaired,  all  the  attri- 
butes and  prerogatives  of  the  Primitive  Church. 

The  fact  is,  my  friend,  you  must  either  discard  the  creed  or 
change  your  position.  As  a  Protestant,  the  two  are  utterly 
incompatible.  It  is  certainly  very  inconsistent  to  accept  doc- 
trines which  are  not  expressly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  nor 
found  in  the  primitive  creeds,  and  at  the  same  time  2^>'cfest 
against  the  Catholic  Church  for  doing  the  same  thing.  You 
cannot  defend  your  creed  except  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  You  must,  consequentlj^  either  relinquish 
the  creed,  or  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Church.  Which 
will  you  do  ? 

Let  me  direct  your  attention  for  a  moment  to  another  arti- 
cle of  the  creed — that  which  asserts  the  Incarnation  of  Christ. 


LETTER     V.  159 

These  are  the  words — "And  was  Incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
of  the  Virgin  Mary."  In  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  same  doc- 
trine is  declared  in  a  simpler  form,  thus — "  Born  of  the  Vir- 
gin 3Iary."  Now,  that  you  believe  this  doctrine,  in  a  certain 
way,  I  have  no  doubt.  But  I  feel  quite  confident  that  you 
do  not  believe  and  realize  it,  in  all  its  breadth  and  consequen- 
ces. This  doctrine,  fully  carried  out,  necessarily  involves  the 
honors  and  prerogatives  which  the  Cathohc  Church  has  always 
ascribed  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  If  God  the  Son  became  in- 
carnate in  her  chaste  womb,  and  was  "born  of  her,"  she  is 
the  "Mother  of  God."  This  Divine  Infant  was  nursed  at  her 
bosom,  and  was  .'iubject  to  her  authority,  for  many  years. 
That  humanity  which  He  received  from  her.  He  carried  with 
Him  mto  heaven,  and  it  will  forever  remain  united  indisso- 
lubly  with  His  divinity.  By  virtue  of  it  He  is,  and  ever  will 
be  the  Man-God.  And  since  the  natural  relation  between 
mother  and  son  must  necessarily  exist  as  long  as  the  parties 
have  a  being,  so  must  the  relation  between  the  Blessed  Vir- 
gin and  her  Divine  Son  remain  unaltered  as  long  as  they  ex- 
ist, which  will  be  forever.  She  is  still,  therefore,  the  Mother 
of  God,  and  will  ever  retain  that  glorious  attribute  and  title. 
Now,  I  ask  you,  whether  it  is  possible  for  any  created  being 
to  enjoy  a  higher  dignity  or  prerogative,  than  is  implied  in 
this  title.  Possessing  this  honor,  she  is  elevated  above  angels 
and  archangels,  cherabim  and  seraphim.  In  an  earthly  mon- 
archy, the  mother  of  the  king  ranks  next  after  the  king  him- 
self, and  receives  special  honor.  Her  influence  is  necessarily 
great,  and  much  sought  after.  So  also  it  is  with  the  Blessed 
Vu'gin,  as  the  Mother  of  the  Divine  King.  Hence,  the  de- 
votions which  pious  Catholics  have  always  been  accustomed  to 
pay  to  her,  while,  however,  they  never  forget  that  she  is  a 
creature  and  not  to  be  worshipped  equally  with  her  Divine 
Son.  They  believe  as  the  creed  teaches  us,  that  she  is  His 
Mother.  And  this  belief  is  a  real  and  practical  belief.  If 
she  is  His  Mother,  it  is  natural  and  logical  to  infer  that  she 
possesses  great  influence  with  Him,  and  hence  they  arc  ever 
anxious  to  secure  her  intercessions.  In  this  they  are  justified 
too,  by  the  gospel  history.  It  was  at  her  request  that  our 
Lord  wrought  His  first  mii-acle,  although  His  "  hour  was  not 
yet  come,"  when  He  changed  the  water  into  wine  at  the  wed- 
ding feast  in  Cana.  Can  we  suppose  that  her  influence  with 
Him  is  less  now?  As  her  Son,  can  He  ever  cease  to  love 
and  honor  her  ? 


160  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

It  is  in  this  way,  iny  friend,  that  the  dignity  and  power  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin  grow  necessarily  out  of  the  Incarnation, 
affirmed  in  the  creed.  And  when  I  hear  Protestants  con- 
demning the  honors  paid  to  her  by  Catholics,  I  cannot  avoid 
doubting  whether  they  truly  believe  that  Jesus  was  God.  If 
their  belief  upon  this  pomt  were  closely  scrutinized,  I  am  sure 
many  of  them  would  be  found  to  hold  the  heresy  of  Nestori- 
us,  condemned  by  the  third  Gleneral  Council.  This  man 
was  bishop  of  the  great  See  of  Constantinople.  He  ventured 
to  deny  that  Mary  was  the  "  Mother  of  God,"  that  is,  that 
she  was  as  the  Greek  word  expresses  it,  Theotocos.  Previous 
to  his  time,  she  had  always  been  honored  with  this  exalted 
title.  This  fact  is  admitted  by  yoiu-  own  writers,  particularly 
by  Hammond  in  his  Definitions  of  Faith,  who  says  in  a  note 
upon  this  term  that,  "it  is  to  be  met  with  in  many  of  the 
most  eminent  Fathers  of  the  Church,  who  lived  before  the 
time  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  as  Athanasius,  Basil,  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Gregory  Nyssene,  Eusebius,  Alexander  of  Alex- 
andria, Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Chrysostom,  and  others." 
But  this  writer,  although  approving  of  the  term  Theotocos, 
because  confirmed  by  a  General  Council,  is  yet  so  inconsistent 
as  to  oppose  the  use  of  the  expression  "  IMother  of  God." 
He  says  it  has  been  used  ' '  to  exalt  the  privileges  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  beyond  those  bounds  within  which  they  ought 
to  be  confined."  For  this  reason,  he  argues,  and  also  because 
it  is  "  likely  to  give  offence,"  it  should  be  avoided,  and  "  the 
original  word  Theotocos  should  be  retained,  or  some  such 
rendering  as  that  of,  "  The  bringer  forth  of  God,  be  adopted 
in  its  stead."  Here,  my  friend,  you  have  another  specimen 
of  the  inconsistency  of  your  divines.  No  matter  how  sound 
or  correct  a  principle  may  be,  they  are  ready  to  abandon  it, 
or  make  absurd  distinctions  concerning  it  lest  they  should  be 
thought  to  agree  with  the  Catholic  !  Observe  the  ridiculous 
distinction  to  which  this  learned  author  resorts.  He  says  you 
must  not  call  Mary,  "Mother  of  God" — but  simply  "The 
bringer  forth  of  God  !"  If  this  is  not  a  ' '  distinction  without 
a  difterence,"  I  should  like  to  know  what  is  one.  When  a 
woman  "brings  forth"  a  child,  she  is  invariably  called  the 
"mother"  of  that  child.  But,  although  it  is  admitted  the 
Blessed  Virgin  bi'ought  forth,  or  was  the  "bringer  forth  of 
God,"  yet  she  must  not  be  called  the  "Mother  of  God!" 
Was  ever  a  distinction  more  groundless,  or  more  preposter- 
ous ?     I  do  not  consider  it  worth  while  to  notice  the  criticism 


LETTER     V .  161 

-of  this  writer  upon  the  translation  of  this  Greek  word  into 
Latin.  He  admits  that  the  term,  Thcotocos.  means,  as  every 
Greek  scholar  knows,  the  "  bringer  forth  of  God."  This  is 
enough.  With  every  unsophisticated  mind,  "  bringer  forth" 
and  "mother"  are  synonymous  terms.  Hence  it  is  just  as 
correct  to  call  the  Virgin,  Mot  ha'  of  God,  as  Thcotocos — the 
former  being  a  true  translation  of  the  latter.  The  truth  is 
I  suspect  that  this  writer,  and  most  Protestants,  would  dis- 
card both  epithets,  if  they  could.  They  know  full  well  that 
if  Christ  is  God,  and  Mary  was  His  Mother,  that  Mary  must 
be  "Mother  of  God."'  And  yet,  they  shrink  from  giving 
her  that  title,  because  they  clearly  perceive  that  it  gives  her 
great  and  glorious  prerogatives,  and  justifies  the  veneration 
which  Catholics  pay  to  her. 

There  is  another  point  connected  with  this  subject,  to  which 
I  must  advert  for  a  moment.  In  the  article  under  consider- 
ation, Mary  is  called  "  The  Virgin  Mary" — "  Was  Inccirnatc 
hij  the  Uoly  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary.''''  In  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  also,  we  find  the  same  expression — '•Born  of  the 
Virgin  3hrg."  Now,  this  language  has  always  been  under- 
stood in  the  Church  as  teaching,  that  Mary  was  not  only  a 
Virgin  at  the  time  of  her  conception,  but  also  at  the  period 
of  her  maternity,  and  ever  afterwards.  She  was  emphati- 
cally, the  Virgin — the  Virgin  Mother.  It  was  her  sole  privi- 
lege to  be  both  a  mother  and  a  virgin.  But  this  is  not  all. 
She  was  also  Semper  Virgo,  always  a  virgin.  This  has  been 
the  tradition  of  the  Church  in  every  age,  and  certainly  it  is 
a  most  reasonable  and  pious  one.  Who,  that  reflects  for  a 
moment  upon  the  great  dignity  conferred  upon  that  holy  wo- 
man when  she  was  chosen  to  be  the  Mother  of  God,  can  fail 
to  be  shocked  at  the  idea  of  her  afterwards  yielding  to  con- 
cupiscence, and  giving  birth  to  a  sinful  mortal  V  And  yet  I 
have  heard  members  of  your  Church  maintain  this  idea,  and 
attempt  to  prove  it  from  Scripture.  That  it  is  entirely  erro- 
iieous,  I  can  show  from  your  own  divines.  Let  me  (juote  one 
of  them  as  a  specimen.  Bishop  Pearson  makes  the  follow- 
ing remarks  upon  the  point — "Yet  the  peculiar  eminency 
and  unparalleled  privilege  of  that  Mother,  the  special  honor 
and  reverence  due  unto  that  Son,  and  ever  paid  by  her,  the 
regard  of  that  Holy  Ghost  who  came  upon  her.  and  power 
of  the  Highest  who  overshadowed  her,  the  singular  goodness 
and  piety  of  Joseph,  to  whom  she  was  espoused,  liacc  per- 
sitadcd  the  Church  of  God  in  cdl  ages  to  lieJiere  that  she  stilf 


162  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

continued  in  the  same  Virginiti/,  and  therefore  is  to  he  ac- 
hnoioleclged  the  Uver-Virgin  3Iary.^'  (^Expos.  of  the  Creed. 
Art.  iii.)  Here,  then,  the  Catholic  tradition  upon  the  point 
is  fully  sustained,  by  one  of  your  highest  authorities.  Hence, 
I  may  observe,  that  the  prevalence  of  the  contrary  opinion 
among  your  people,  is  only  another  evidence  of  the  utter  ab- 
sence of  any  thing  lilfe  a  sound  and  consistent  belief  among 
you  as  to  the  truths  of  religion.  Every  man  and  every  wo- 
man believe  as  they  please,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  teach- 
ing of  the  bishops  and  clergy,  or  even  of  the  Prayer-Book. 

A.  B. 


LETTER    YI. 

Eem.irks  on  the  artit-le  conceruing  the  Church. — Singuhir  Omission. — 
The  Chiuth  of  the  Creed,  One,  Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic. — 
Meaning:  of  the  term  "Church." — The  Church  One,  and  not  Several. 
— In  Avhat  sense  One. — One  in  Org^anization  and  not  various  "Inde- 
pendent Branches."' — Protestant  Acknowledgments. — "Branches," 
mere  Divisions. — The  Church  is  "Holy.'' — 'This  Mark  Incompatible 
with  Branches  or  Divisions. — The  Church  is  "Catholic' — Meaning 
of  this  Term. — IIow  Understood  by  the  Fathers. — Fourth  Mark, 
"Apostolic.'' — Meaning  of  this  Term. — A  Church  Founded  by  the 
Apostles  and  continuing  ever  since. — Implies  both  Order  and  Juris- 
diction.— Where  are  the  four  Marks  found  ? — The  "Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church"'  does  not  possess  them. — Is  destitute  of  Orders  and 
Jurisdiction . 

My  Dear  Friend  : 

Permit  me  in  this  letter,  to  ask  your  attention  to  a  few  re- 
flections upon  another  article  in  your  Constantinopolitan  Creed. 
After  declaring  your  belief  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost,  you 
say — And Ihdieve  One  CatlwUc  and  Apostolic  Church. 

In  the  first  place,  let  me  point  out  to  you  the  enlargement 
which  this  article,  as  well  as  other  portions  of  the  creed,  has 
undergone.  In  the  Apostles'  Creed,  you  profess  your  belief 
simply  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  But  here  it  is  One 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Chnrch.  You  have  thus  added  two 
words,  viz :  "  OwP  and  '•'Apostolic,'"  in  order  to  designate 
the  true  character  of  the  Church.  There  should  also  be  yet 
another  word  here,  which  your  authorities  have  very  strange- 
ly omitted,  that  is,  the  term  "holy."  As  this  term  is  ap- 
plied to  the  Church  in  your  Apostles'  Creed,  and  as  it  formed 
a  part  of  the  creed  when  first  drawn  up  at  Constantinople, 
and  still  forms  a  part  of  it  as  used  in  the  Catholic  Church,  I 
cannot  imagine  upon  what  ground  it  has  been  omitted  by 
you.*  I  find  it  is  omitted,  also,  in  the  English  Prayer- 
Book.     Whether  the  omission  was  designed  or  accidental,  I 

*In  Hammond's  ^^Definitions  of  Fnith'^  see  this  creed,  and  you  will 
find  the  article  in  question  given  thus — '-One,  Holy,  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church  f  corresponding  with  the  Latin  form  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church — TJnam  Sanctam  Catholicam  et  Apostolicam . 

15  (1G3) 


164  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

am  not  able  to  say,  but  it  is  quite  a  serious  matter,  for  it  is 
nothing  less  than  a  mutilation  of  the  creed.  If  not  design- 
ed, but  a  mere  accidental  error,  it  shows  a  most  culpable 
negligence  on  the  part  of  the  guardians  of  the  faith  among 
you.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  your  Church  would 
hesitate  to  alter  the  creed,  by  omitting  this  word  lyurposely, 
for  we  have  seen  that  she  deliberately  altered  the  Apostles' 
Creed  in  the  article  concerning  the  "  descent  into  hell,"  and 
even  discarded  the  creed  of  Athanasius  altogether.  But  I 
do  not  accuse  her  of  designedly  leaving  out  the  word  now  in 
question,  because  she  has  retained  the  very  same  word  in 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  in  which  you  say  "I  believe  in  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church."  The  Church  then,  in  which  you 
profess  to  believe,  is  "  holy." 

Although,  then,  the  article  we  are  now  considering  does 
not  read  correctly  in  your  Prayer-Book,  yet,  inasmuch  as 
the  defect  is  made  up  in  your  other  creed,  your  belief  in  this 
respect  is  precisely  the  same  as  the  Catholic  professes,  who 
following  the  creed  as  it  has  always  read,  says  "^Ihelieve  in 
One,  Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.''^  This,  then,  is 
your  profession  upon  the  subject  of  the  Church.  Now,  my 
friend,  let  me  ask  you,  have  you  ever  duly  considered  the 
import  of  this  profession  ?  You  not  only  profess  to  believe 
in  the  Church,  but  you  delineate  the  nature  or  character  of 
the  Church  in  which  you  believe,  by  applying  to  her  four 
distinct  marks  or  characteristics,  viz : — One,  Holy,  Catliolic 
and  Ajwstolic.  Have  you  ever  considered  the  meaning  of 
these  terms,  separately  or  combined  ? 

These  four  epithets  have  always  been  considered  as  desig- 
nating the  four  marks,  or  characteristics,  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.  They  are  not  all  found,  as  you  have  noticed  in  the 
Apostles'  Creed — but  only  two  of  them,  viz  :  Holy  and  Catho- 
lic. And  even  these  two  did  not  exist  in  the  most  ancient 
forms  of  that  creed,  which  simply  declared,  I  believe  in  the 
Holy  Church.  But  the  other  three  epithets,  or  marks,  were 
added  at  later  periods  (but  all  prior  to  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century)  in  order  to  designate  the  Church  with  more  preci- 
sion, and  to  distinguish  her  from  the  spurious  Churches,  or 
sects,  which  sprung  up  around  her,  and  sought  to  seduce  the 
faithful  from  their  allegiance.  Upon  the  same  principle  an- 
other term  has  been  sometimes  used  in  more  recent  times,  to 
distinguish  the  true  Church — I  mean  the  term  "Roman/'  as 
in  the  phrase,  the   "Holy,  Catholic^  Apostolic  and  Roman 


LETTER    VI.  165 

Church^''  or  more  briefly,  the  "Roman  Catholic  Church.^' 
Although  this  term  was  not  wholly  unused  even  in  ancient 
times,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  the  brother  of  St.  Am- 
brose, mentioned  in  a  previous  letter.  The  term  has  never 
been  inserted  in  the  Creed,  but  it  may  often  be  usefully  em- 
ployed to  distinguish  the  true  Catholic  Church,  which  has  its 
seat  and  centre  of  authority  in  the  "Eternal  City." 

To  treat  fully  of  the  Church,  and  its  attributes  or  charac- 
teristics, as  set  forth  in  the  Creed,  would  require  more  time 
and  space  than  I  have  to  devote  to  the  subject.  I  must, 
therefore,  confine  the  remarks  I  shall  make  to  a  few  of  the 
leading  and  most  obvious  truths  connected  with  the  subject. 
You  declare  your  faith  in  these  terms : 

I  believe  in  One,  Holy,  CatJiolic  and  Aj)osfolic  Chnreh. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  pregnant  sentences  to  bo  found  in 
the  language.  Every  word  of  it  is  full  of  meaning,  and  in- 
deed, expresses  a  great  truth.  This  is  more  particularly  the 
case  with  that  little  final  word  of  one  syllable — Church. 
Upon  the  meaning  of  this  term  whole  volumes  have  been 
written,  and  many  and  diverse  expositions  have  been  put 
forth,  varying  with  the  preconceived  notions  and  prejudices 
of  the  wi'iters.  It  is  not  in  my  power,  within  the  narrow 
limits  to  which  I  must  restrict  myself,  to  engage  in  an  ela- 
borate discussion  of  this  topic,  nor  indeed  is  it  necessary, 
here,  for  the  true  character  of  tlie  Church  referred  to  in  the 
Creed,  is  to  be  sought  rather  in  the  terms  by  which  she  is 
designated — One.  Hohj,  Catholic  and  Apostolic.  The  sense 
in  which  the  word  Church  is  ordinarily  used,  will  be  suffi- 
cient for  our  purpose  here,  even  though  it  may  fall  short  of 
the  strict  and  full  meaning  of  the  word.  What  then  is  the 
ordinary  or  popular  meaning  of  the  word  Church  f  It  sim- 
ply means  a  body  of  Christians,  united  under  one  govern- 
ment, having  its  ministers  and  sacraments,  its  assemblies  and 
worship,  acknowledging  one  set  of  doctrines,  and  one  supreme 
authority  vested  in  a  chief  officer,  or  legislative  council. 
This  is  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  Church :  and 
hence  people  speak  of  the  Methodist  Church,  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  Catholic  Church, 
&c.,  &.C.,  understanding  in  every  instance  a  distinct  body  of 
Christians,  such  as  I  have  descrilDed.  In  this  general  sense, 
these  distinct  bodies  present  the  same  idea,  and  may  all  be 
admitted  to  be  Churches.  But  the  great  practical  question 
is,  which  of  them  is  the  true  Church — which  of  them  is  the 


166  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Church  founded  by  our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  V  They 
cannot  all  be  such — for  they  ai-e  distinct  bodies,  and  differ 
from  each  other  in  doctrines  and  rites,  and  also  deny  the 
claims  of  each  other.  As  the  one  professes  to  be  the  Chui'ch 
of  Christ  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  it  is  a  vitally  import- 
ant question — which  is  the  true  and  genuine  Church  ?  Now, 
my  friend,  you  have  the  answer  to  this  question  in  the  Creed 
which  you  have  retained  in  your  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
The  articl(7^  concei-uing  the  Church  was  constructed  at  Con- 
stantinople, nearly  fifteen  hundred  years  ago,  for  the  very 
purpose  of  answering  this  question ;  for  the  very  purpose  of 
enabling  all  sincere  inquirers  to  distinguish  between  the  true 
Church  and  the  false  ones.  Here  is  a  rule  provided  for  you 
by  a  Council,  whose  authority  you  acknowledge;  a  rule  which 
you  yourself  have  adopted,  by  which  you  can  try  your  own 
Church,  and  every  other  Church,  and  by  which  you  can 
clearly  discover  which  is  the  true  Church,  and  which  is  not. 
You  will  not  deny  that  the  Church  of  the  fourth  century, 
whicli  was  represented  first  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  after- 
wards at  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  was  the  true  Church 
of  Christ  in  that  age.  Yet,  in  that  early  age,  and  indeed 
much  earlier,  there  were  several  bodies  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, just  as  there  are  now,  each  claiming  to  be  the  true 
Scriptural  Church — such  as  the  Donatists,  Arians,  Novatians, 
Macedonians,  Photenians,  Marcianites,  Massilians  and  others. 
Several  of  these  sects  were  large  and  influential  communi- 
ties, particularly  the  Arians  and  the  Donatists,  and  spread  over 
extensive  territory.  The  Donatists  had  the  ' '  Three  Orders," 
the  "Succession,"  and  had  as  many  as  four  hundred  bishops 
in  Africa  alone,  they  also  received  the  Creeds  which  you  re- 
ceive ;  yet  they  were  in  schism,  and  rejected  the  authority 
of  the  Catholic  Church  as  represented  at  Constantinople,  and 
govei-ned  by  the  Pope,  and  were  in  turn  condemned  by  the 
Catholic  Church,  which  they  charged,  just  as  you  do  now, 
with  having  fallen  into  error  and  corruption.  This  sect  pre- 
sented a  much  more  imposing  body  than  does  your  Church, 
or  any  Protestant  Church  at  this  time,  because  it  had  genu- 
ine orders,  a  lai'ger  number  of  bishops,  and  was  not  confined 
to  one  country.  And  yet  the  Christians  of  that  day  had  to 
distinguish  between  the  true  Church  and  the  Donatists,  and 
other  powerful  sects.  And  how  did  they  do  it  ?  They  did 
it  as  I  have  said,  by  the  four  marks  laid  down  in  the  Creed 
composed  at  Constantinople — I  believe  in  One,  Hohj,  Catlw- 


LETTER     VI.  167 

lie  and  Apostolic  Church.  Now,  as  you  admit  that  the 
Chiircli  which  hiid  down  these  marks  was  the  true  Church  of 
that  age,  you  must  admit  that  these  marks  wore  then  the 
characteristics  of  the  Church — and  as  the  Church  must  al- 
ways be  the  same,  slie  must  always  possess  the  same  charac- 
teristics. Consecjuently,  the  true  Church,  now  as  then,  must 
possess  these  four  marks.  But  no  argument  of  this  sort  can 
be  necessary,  since  your  Ci'eed  recjuires  you  to  believe  in  the 
Church  which  has  tliese  marks.  The  rule,  then,  being  admit- 
ted, it  is  only  necessary  for  us  to  apply  it.  The  Church  in 
which  we  believe,  must  be  One,  Iloh/,  Catholic  and  Ajwsfolic. 
Let  us  consider  what  is  implied  in  these  marks . 

First,  the  Church  is  One.  She  is  one,  organized,  visible 
body,  and  not  several  or  many.  Oneness  necessarily 
excludes  plurality.  No  person  pretends  that  our  Lord 
founded  more  than  one  Church.  "  On  this  rock,"  He  said, 
alluding  to  Peter,  "  I  will  build  Mi/  Church.^'  Observe  that 
our  Lord  here  uses  the  singular  number.  My  Church,  and 
not  Ml/  Chvrchea — shewing  that  He  meant  but  one.  The 
same  idea  pervades  the  Ncav  Testament.  Wherever  the 
Church  is  spoken  of,  it  is  as  one  Church.  Thus:  "  There 
shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shepherd."  It  is  true  we  some- 
times read  of  chnrches ;  but  these  are  loccd  churches,  the 
churches  of  different  cities,  all  of  which  were  but  portions  of 
the  one  general  visible  body  of  Christians,  who  were  united 
together  under  the  Apostles,  and  under  other  ministers  ap- 
pointed by  the  Apostles.  That  these  various  local  chm-ches 
wei'e  united  under  the  government  of  the  Apostles,  is  plain 
from  the  fact  that  tlie  Apostles  are  described  in  the  Book  of 
Acts  as  journeying  from  city  to  city,  instructing,  confirm- 
ing, correcting,  &c.,  as  circumstances  required;  and  also  by 
the  fact  that  their  ej^tistles,  especially  those  of  St.  Paul  and 
St.  Peter,  were  addressed  to  these  various  churches,  shewing 
that  their  members  were  still  under  the  Apostles'  jurisdic- 
tion. In  their  epistles,  as  well  as  in  their  sermons  and  other 
oral  instructions,  they  prescribed  for  all  these  converts  a  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  and  discipline.  To  this  system  all  true 
Christians  were  obliged  to  submit.  "One  Lord,  One 
Faith,  One  Baptism,"  was  their  rule.  And  again  :  "A  man 
that  is  a  heretic,  reject."  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule 
over  you,  for  they  watch  for  your  souls."  These  and  many 
similar  passages,  all  iuiply  the  existence  of  authorized  min- 
isters, and  a  system  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  The  oneness 
15* 


168  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

of  the  Cliurcli  is  shewn  also  in  the  types  or  figures  used  in 
Scripture  in  reference  to  Christians.  Thus  :  "  Ye  are  God's 
building."  "  Ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are  built  up  a  spirit- 
ual house."  Thus  they  constituted  a  "house"  a  "build- 
ing." And  again — ' '  He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the 
Church."  Thus,  the  Church  is  the  Body  of  Christ.  All 
these  figures,  as  well  as  the  use  of  the  singular  number,  im- 
ply only  one  Church.  The  Apostles  took  pains,  too,  to  pre- 
serve this  unity  of  the  Church,  by  the  admonitions  which 
they  gave  against  dissension  and  schism.  They  were  espe- 
cially careful  to  warn  them  against  the  seductions  of  false 
teachers.  Thus,  says  St.  Peter — "There  were  false  pro- 
phets also  among  the  people,  even  as  there  shall  he  false  teach- 
ers among  you,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies, 
even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bring  upon 
themselves  swift  destruction.  And  many  shall  follow  their 
pernicious  ways."  (2  Peter,  ii.  12.)  St.  John  speaks  of 
these  false  teachers  as  already  come — "  They  went  out  from 
us,  but  these  were  not  of  us.  For  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they 
would,  no  doubt,  have  continued  with  us."  St.  Jude,  speak- 
ing of  this  same  class,  says  :  "  These  be  they  which  separate 
themselves  sensual,  having  not  the  spirit."  Thus  we  find  the 
One  Church  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles — rand  we  find  false 
teachers  rising  up  in  that  One  Church,  going  out  of  it,  or 
being  cast  out  of  it,  and  forming  sects  or  spui-ious  churches. 
In  this  respect  that  age  was  not  unlike  the  present,  nor  un- 
like every  other  age  of  the  Church.  This  One  Church,  sur- 
rounded by  opposing  sects,  we  trace  down  to  the  Gleneral 
Council  of  Constantinople,  when  the  article  under  consider- 
ation was  inserted  in  the  Creed,  although  it  had  all  along 
previously  formed  a  part  of  the  earlier  forms  of  faith — as, 
"I  believe  in  the  Holy  Church,"  or  "the  Holy  Catholic 
Church" — which  phrases  imjjly  but  one  Church.  Now, 
when  the  fathers  of  that  council  inserted  this  article  in  the 
Creed,  what  Church  did  they  mean  by  it?  Of  course  they 
meant  the  Church  of  which  they  were  members.  That  was 
the  "One,  Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church"  in  which 
they  believed,  and  of  which  they  were  the  rej)resentatives. 
They  had  assembled  to  condemn  the  heresies  of  the  Arians, 
the  Sabellians,  the  Macedonians,  the  Montanists  and  other 
sects,  and  to  set  forth  a  brief  summary  of  the  true  and  ortho- 
dox faith  upon  those  points  which  were,  at  that  time,  assailed; 
and  having  done  this,  they  deemed  it  necessary  to  lay  down 


LKTTKU     VI  .  1(30 

the  marhs  by  which  the  Church  of  God,  the  authorized 
guide  of  the  faithful,  might  be  easily  distinguished  from  the 
sects  around.  Ileuee  the  declaration,  "I  believe  One, 
Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  That  council  also 
laid  down  a  rule  for  receiving  into  their  communion  the  con- 
verted members  of  the  sects  which  I  have  named,  rc<|uiring 
them  first  to  make  a  "  written  renunciation  of  their  errors, 
and  to  anathematize  every  heresy  which  does  not  agree  in 
opinion  with  the  Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  of 
God."  (Can.  vii.)  Thus  did  they  maintain  the  unity  and 
authority  of  their  Church,  by  treating  all  outside  of  her  pale, 
no  matter  how  numerous  or  powerful,  as  mere  separatists  and 
schismatics,  and  forming  no  part  of  the  "household  of 
God."  The  sects  were  many,  and  some  of  them  were  al- 
most orthodox,  and  had  genuine  orders,  but  the  Chiu-ch 
held  no  fellowshij)  or  communion  with  them,  and  scarcely 
deigned  to  notice  their  existence  except  to  condemn  their 
errors  and  warn  the  foithful  against  them. 

The  One  Chiu'ch,  then,  to  which  they  referred  in  this  ar- 
ticle, was  their  own  Church,  in  contradistinction  from  the 
many  sects  and  pretended  chui'ches  which  had  gradually 
sprung  up  in  different  countries,  just  as  we  have  seen  them 
do  since  the  sixteenth  century.  I  know  of  nothing  better 
calculated  to  show  the  nature  of  this  unity,  than  we  have  in 
the  convocation  and  acts  of  this  council  itself.  Although 
composed  of  many  parts,  scattered  over  the  world,  yet  it 
must  have  constituted  oile  organized  body,  just  as  much  so 
as  a  commonwealth  or  a  kingdom,  or  any  religious  denomi- 
nation of  the  present  day.  Unless  it  had  been  such,  it  could 
not  have  held  its  representative  council,  composed  of  a  hun- 
dred and  fifty  bishops,  whose  decrees  concerning  both  faith 
and  discipline,  were  instantly  accepted  as  authoritative  by 
east  and  west,  by  all  orthodox  Christians  throughout  the 
world.  Such  was  the  One  Church  which  framed  the  Creed 
at  Constantinople,  and  such  must  be  the  One  Church  at  the 
present  day.  The  Chmx-h  is  like  her  Divine  Founder,  un- 
changeable. The  oneness  of  the  Church  necessarily  implies 
sameneSvS  or  identity,  in  every  age.  If  this  were  not  the 
case,  we  should  have  several  distinct  churches — a  church  for 
this  age,  and  a  chm'ch  for  that  age — differing  in  natm-e,  doc- 
trine and  practice.  We  often  meet  with  this  false  idea  in 
the  loose  language  of  popular  Protestantism,  and  sometimes 
even  in  High  Church  writers.      Thus  they  speak  of  the 


170  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

"Primitive  Church,"  and  the  "Mediaeval  Church,"  and 
the  "present  Church,"  as  if  they  were  so  many  dififerent 
churches.  Such  language  may  be  admissable  when  we  wish 
rather  to  designate  a  certain  age  of  the  Church ;  but  it  is  al- 
together erroneous  if  used  to  imply,  as  sometimes  is  done,  a 
diversity  or  plurality  of  churches.  The  Church  is  emphati- 
cally scmjier  cadem.  one  and  the  same  in  every  age,  although 
it  may  present  a  dilFerent  external  appearance  in  this  or  that 
age,  owing  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  times,  now 
propitious,  now  adverse.  It  cannot  be  necessary  to  argue 
this  point  at  length,  since  it  is  so  apparent,  and  since  also  it 
is  admitted  by  your  own  divines,  particularly  by  that  emi- 
nent writer,  whom  I  have  so  often  cited,  Bishoj)  Pearson. 
This  divine,  in  giving  a  summary  of  the  meaning  of  the  ar- 
ticle in  the  Creed  concerning  the  Catholic  Church,  says :  "I 
am  assured  that  there  was,  hath  been  hitherto,  and  now  is, 
and  liereafter  shall  he,  so  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  endure,  a 
Church  of  Christ,  one  and  the  same.^'  (Escpos.  of  Creed,  p. 
508.)  This  is  clear  and  positive  ;  and  as  it  is  important  to 
my  argument,  I  trust  it  will  be  borne  in  mind  throughout 
this  discussion  upon  the  character  of  the  true  Church. 

If,  then,  the  Church  be  "  one  and  the  same"  in  every  age, 
her  oneness  or  unity  now  must  be  such  as  it  was  in  the 
fourth  century.  Her  unity,  then  was  such  as  to  admit  of  a 
representative  council,  acting  in  the  name  of  the  whole  and 
recognized  by  all.  Her  unity  now  must  be  the  same.  And 
this  is  the  unity  which  you  affirm  of  her  when  you  recite  this 
Creed  which  she  dictated — a  visible  organic  unity — such  as 
that  of  a  republic,  or  kingdom,  or  empire.  This  was  not  an 
ideal  or  imaginary  unity,  such  as  some  persons  now  speak  of, 
when  they  say  the  One  Church  consists  of  all  true  Chris- 
tians, no  matter  of  what  nation  or  of  what  denomination,  or 
that  it  consists  of  certain  branches,  as  the  Episcopal  Church, 
the  Anglican  Church  and  the  Roman  Church,  &c.  It  was 
a  real,  actual,  subjective  unity,  shewing  itself  in  the  com- 
bined and  harmonious  action  of  the  various  component  parts 
meeting  in  general  council,  asserting  the  Apostolic  fjiith,  con- 
demning heresies  and  sects,  and  making  laws  for  the  Church 
of  the  whole  world — doing  all  this  as  with  one  mind  and  voice. 
Does  the  imaginary  Church  of  the  High  Churchman,  or  Pu- 
seyite,  or  Evangelical,  acccording  to  their  respective  theories, 
do  anything  of  that  sort  ?  It  never  did,  and  never  can.  Con- 
secjuently  it  is  not  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  the  Constantino- 


LETTKR    VI.  171 

politan  age,  nor  the  unity  of  the  creed.  It  is  a  mere  theory, 
a  mere  fiction  of  the  imagination,  vainly  devised  to  conceal  or 
to  supply  the  want  of  that  genuine  imity  •nhicli  thoy  know 
o?^^/i-' to  exist.  It  is  impossible  for  the  various  "branches," 
so  called,  of  the  High  Churchmen  to  constitute  the  One  Church 
of  Christ,  because  they  are  at  variance  in  regard  to  articles 
of  faith.  I  have  already  pointed  out  the  diversity  in  this 
respect,  between  even  the  Episcopal  Church  and  her  mother 
' '  Chiu'ch  of  England  ;"  the  former  having  discarded  a  whole 
creed,  which  the  latter  retains,  and  declares  "ought  to  be 
thoroughly  received  and  believed."  Besides,  the  Anglican 
Chm-ch  acknowledges  as  her  supreme  head  on  earth,  the 
sovereign  of  the  country,  who  is  always  a  lay  person,  and 
sometimes  a  woman  or  a  mere  boy — nor  is  there  any  visible 
tie  connecting  the  two  together ;  no  common  living  authority 
which  both  Churches  recognise  and  submit  to,  one  being 
entirely  independent  of  the  other.  And  if  these  Churches 
cannot  be  one  with  each  other,  much  less  can  they  be  one  with 
the  Greek  or  Roman  Church ;  since  they  difier  from  these 
much  more  Avidely  than  from  each  other  :  and  not  only  difier, 
but  denounce  and  refuse  to  recognise  each  other.  There  is, 
indeed,  a  deadly  feud  existing  between  them.  The  idea  of 
calling  all  these  dissenting  communions  the  "One  Church," 
seems  almost  too  preposterous  to  be  entertained  by  a  reflecting 
mind.  Certainly  you  might  as  well  speak  of  England  and 
Russia  as  being  one  nation  in  the  midst  of  that  terrible  strug- 
gle so  long  waged  at  Sebastojjol :  or  you  might  as  well  speak 
of  England  and  America  as  forming  one  nation  after  the  war 
of  1776,  as  well  as  before.  The  separation  of  England  from 
Rome,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  destroyed  the  unity  of  the 
two,  just  as  efiectually  as  did  that  war  make  two  of  England 
and  America  ;  and  as  nothing  has  since  been  done  to  reunite 
them,  no  one  but  a  mere  dreamer  can  regard  them  as  integral 
parts  or   "  branches"  of  the  One  Church. ^= 


*  To  show  that  I  do  not  misrepresent  your  recognized  divines,  when 
I  say  that  they  hold  the  theory,  that  the  One  Universal  Church  is  made 
up  of  distinct  Jiranches,  including  the  Church  of  Rome,  I  will  quote 
a  passage  or  two  from  a  work  by  Bishop  Kip — after  mentioning  the 
Greek  Churcli,  as  a  part  of  the  Universal  Church,  he  proceeds  :  "We 
acknowledge,  too,  as  Catholics,  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
within  the  bounds  of  her  own  proper  jurisdiction,  and  when  she  does 
not  put  forth  claims  which  conflict  with  those  of  other  branches  of  the 
Church."     {Double  Witness,  p.  314,  315.)     In  a  foot  note,  he  adds, 


172  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

The  notion  that  the  One  Church  is  made  up  of  several 
distinct  branches,  one  here  and  another  there,  and  so  on 
throughout  the  world,  may  seem  plausible  and  satisfactory  to 
those  who  do  not  wish  to  give  themselves  the  trouble  of  look- 
ing thoroughly  into  the  matter.  A  little  thought  would  cer- 
tainly be  sufficient  to  dissipate  the  illusion  in  any  candid 
mind.  What  sort  of  a  Church  is  that  which  is  made  up  of 
"  branches."  The  figure  of  a  tree,  which  is  here  used,  im- 
plies the  existence  of  a  trunk.  And  if  we  apply  this  figure 
to  the  Church — if  we  compare  the  Church  to  a  tree,  the 
Church  must  have  a  trunk  as  well  as  branches.  Where  then 
is  the  trunk  upon  which  these  "branches"  rest,  and  from 
which  they  derive  sap  and  vigor.  The  advocates  of  this 
' '  branch"  theory  can  point  to  nothing  of  the  sort  now  exist- 
ing. They  say  the  "branches"  ai'e  independent  of  each 
other :  of  course,  then,  they  do  not  depend  upon  any  trunk. 
It  is  evident  that  the  vei'y  idea  involves  a  self-contradiction. 
In  the  living  tree  the  branches  rest  upon  the  trunk.  Cut 
them  off  from  the  trunk,  make  them  "independent,"  and 
they  instantly  wither.  So  it  must  be  with  the  "branches"  of 
the  Church.  The  moment  they  become  "independent"  they 
lose  all  their  vitality,  and  cease  to  be  parts  of  the  One  Churcli. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  conceive  of  "independent  branches," 
except  as  mere  withered  branches,  deprived  of  sap  and  life. 
If  these  so-called  branches  constitute  the  One  Church,  why 
have  they  not  met  in  General  Council,  as  did  the  ancient 
Church  first  at  Nice,  then  at  Constantinople,  then  at  Ephesus, 
then  at  Chalcedon,  (A.  D.  461,)  and  so  on  at  later  periods, 
to  provide  for  the  general  welfare  ?  In  those  early  ages,  the 
least  symptom  of  doctrinal  discord,  awakened  the  solicitude 
of  the  bishops  throughout  the  world ,  and  caused  them  to  take 
prompt  measures  to  coD-ect  the  evil  ])y  asP':>mbling  in  General 
Council,  to  compare  their  doctriites,  and  to  preserve  the  inte- 
grity and  unity  of  the  i'ailh.  But  how  different  with  these 
.so-called  ' '  branches  !"     For  three  hundred  years  they  have 


"We  have  followed  on  this  point  the  great  body  of  English  Divines." 
He  then  cites  Hooker,  as  asserting  the  same  thing,  and  then  says: 
'•This  was  the  view  of  Land,  Hammond,  Bramhall,  Andrewes,  Chil- 
lingworth,  Tilletson,  Burnet,  &c.  It  is  asserted,  also,  most  clearly, 
in  the  formularies  of  the  English  Church."  After  adducing  proofs 
from  these  "formularies,"  he  adds,  "Leading  modern  writers  gener- 
ally take  the  same  view.  It  will  be  found  expressed  in  the  works  of 
Palmer,  Bishcp  Whittingham,  Dr.  Hook,   G.  S.  Faber,  and  others." 


LETTKU     VI.  173 

been  at  variauce,  contradicting  each  other  upon  points  of 
faith,  and  denouncing  each  other  as  corrupt  and  heretical, 
and  yet  they  have  never  assembled  together  in  order  to  settle 
these  disputed  points,  and  bring  about  harmony  and  imity. 
This  fact  shows  conclasively,  that  there  is  something  wrong 
— shows  conclusively,  that  these  so-called  ''branches"  cannot 
constitute  the  One  Church,  such  as  that  One  Church  existed 
during  the  fii'st  five  hundred  years  of  her  existence.* 

It  must  be  evident,  from  the  foregoing  remarks,  that  tliese 
so-called  "branches'  are,  after  all,  with  but  one  exception, 
only  so  many  "divisions;''  indeed,  this  is  apparent  to  the 
most  superficial  observer,  and  an  argument  to  prove  it  seems 
almost  superfluous.  I  may  also  add,  that  the  fact  is  some- 
times reluctantly  admitted  even  by  the  class  of  Protestant 
dix-ines  who,  more  or  less,  clmg  to  the  "branch"  theory. 
Looking  at  Christendom  as  it  natm'ally  presents  itself  to  their 
eyes,  they  feel  impelled  to  speak  of  the  Chm-ch  as  "  distract- 
ed," "divided,"  "rent  in  pieces,"  &c.  Thus,  the  Eev.  Mr. 
Hammond,  of  the  Anglican  Church,  speaking  of  the  defini- 
tions and  decrees  of  the  early  councils,  says  :  ' '  which  come 
to  us  with  the  authority  of  the  Universal  Church,  whilst  it 
was  still  outwardly  one  and  undivided."  (I)(f.  of  Faith,  ■^.  5.) 
Here  this  divine  plainly  admits  the  unity  of  the  Church  iu 
the  sense  for  which  I  have  contended,  as  organic  and  visible, 
in  the  early  ages  ;  while,  at  the  same  tune,  his  language 
necessarily  iiuplies  that  that  unity  no  longer  exists.  To  say, 
"whilst  the  Chmxh"  ivaa  still  "one  and  midivided,"  of  course 
implies  that  she  is  not  now  "one  and  undivided,"  but  divided 
and  rent  in  pieces.  The  same  opinion  is  expressed  by  Arch- 
deacon Manning,  another  able  divine  of  the  Anglican  com- 
munion ,  who  after  writing  a  treatise  on  the  ' '  Unity  of  the 
Church,"  its  natm-e,  divine  institution,  and  binding  obliga- 
tion upon  all  Christians,  is  compelled  to  conclude  the  work 
with  this  lamentable  confession  :  '  'Although  for  our  sins  the 
Church  be  now  miserably  divided,  it  may  yet  be  once  more 
united.     Let  us  only  believe,  that  it  still  retains  the  powers 

"■Persons  who  hold  this  ''branch"'  theory,  sometimes  profess  their 
readiness  to  submit  to  a  future  General  Council.  Let  us  suppose,  then, 
such  a  council  were  now  convened.  As  the  Greek  and  Roman  branch- 
es far  out-number  the  Protestant  portions,  they  would  necessarily  pre- 
ponderate in  the  council,  and  every  question  would  be  decided  accord- 
ing to  their  belief.  Consequently,  Anglicans  and  Episcopalians  would 
have  to  adopt  many  doctrines  which  they  now  reject ! 


174  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

of  recovery ;  we  are  divided  because  we  have  so  little  faith 
in  the  grace  of  Unity.  Let  vis  steadfastly  trust  that  our  long 
lost  heir-loom,  will  once  more  be  found,"  &c.*  (Unity  of 
the  Cliurch,  pp.  304,  305.)  So,  also,  another  eminent  writer 
and  clergyman  of  the  same  communion,  Mr.  Palmer,  who 
says  :  '  'And  while  we  lament  the  disunion  oi^  the  Christian 
Church,"  &c.  (Ecd.  Hist.,  p.  227.)  Yom-  own  divines  on 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  indulge  in  the  same  melancholy 
strain.  Thus,  says  Bishop  Southgate,  "May  we  not  with 
brighter  confidence,  look  forward  to  the  day  when  strifes 
shall  be  healed,  and  when  the  mystical  body  of  our  Blessed 
Saviour,  now  rent,  distracted,  torn,  shall  be  again  united  in 
all  its  parts."  (Visit  to  the  Syrian  Church,  pp.  9,  10.) 
These  writers  all  belong  to  the  same  High  Church  school, 
and  hold  to  the  "  branch"  theory.  But  see  what  wretched 
and  suicidal  admissions  they  make — the  smn  of  which  is — 
the  Church  was  once  One,  but  she  is  now  miserably  divided. 
Thus,  they  confirm  what  I  have  maintained  concerning  the 
existence  of  a  visible  unity  in  the  Church  in  the  early  ages, 
and  at  the  same  time  by  admitting  that  that  unity  is  now 
lost,  and  the  Church  now  rent  and  divided,  they  virtually 
confess  that  their  branch  theory  does  not  correspond  with  the 
ancient  Church.  This  latter  admission,  I  say,  is  suicidal  and 
self-condemnatory,  for  it  necessarily  implies  that  their  "One 
Church"  (made  up  of  independent  branches)  does  not  answer 
to  the  One  Church  of  antiquity,  the  One  Church  of  the  Creed. 
This  is  enough  to  convince  every  impartial  mind,  that  their 
theories  upon  the  subject  are  erroneous,  for  the  "One  Church" 
of  Christ  must  always  remain  one  and  the  same. 

Observe,  too,  the  miserable  condition  to  which  the  Church 
is  reduced,  according  to  these  admissions.  She  is  "now 
rent,  distracted,  torn,"  "disunited,  divided."  Why,  this 
places  the  whole  Church  in  a  state  of  schism.  Her  disjecta 
memhra  may  be  seen  scattei'ed  over  the  face  of  the  earth, 
kicking  against  each  other.  The  One  Church  is,  conse- 
quently, defunct — "  the  gates  of  hell  have  prevailed  against 

*I  am  happy  to  add  that  this  distinguished  Protestant  ecclesiastic, 
has  already  found  the  "long-lost  heir-loom,"  but  in  a  way  he  did  not 
anticipate  when  he  wrote  his  book  :  he  found  it  where  only  it  can  be 
found,  in  the  Catholic  and  Roman  Church,  of  which  he  is  now  a  zeal 
ous  and  useful  priest.  Thus,  like  many  others,  he  acknowledged  his 
inability  to  reconcile  his  theories  and  his  position  with  the  true  doc- 
trine of  the  Unity  or  oneness  of  the  Church. 


LETTKR     Vr.  170 

her."  In  her  phice,  we  have  nothing  hut  a  number  of 
"wretched  sects,  or  eccleshistieal  factions,  disputinfr  and  wrang- 
linfj  amon<;  themselves.  Thus  the  Church  and  tlie  sects  arc 
reduced  to  a  common  level.  She  who  should  have  attracted 
and  assimilated  the  sects  to  herself  in  the  one  body,  has  fallen 
into  the  same- distracted  condition  as  themselves,  and  instead 
of  reducing  the  number  of  sects  she  has  only  inci'eased  them, 
by  falling  into  pieces  herself.  Can  any  one  believe  this  who 
has  a  proper  conception  of  the  Church  of  Christ?  Credat 
Judaeus  ApcUa :  non  ego.  It  would  amount  to  a  virtual 
failure  of  the  Church,  contrary  to  Christ's  express  declara- 
tion. The  Church  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  only  "one  body," 
she  is  a  teaching  and  authoritative  body.  Go  ye.  said  her 
Divine  Founder,  and  teach  all  nations.  Teach  what  ?  ^Vhat- 
soever  I  hare  commanded  you.  But  in  order  to  teach  what 
Christ  commanded,  she  must  teach  only  one  set  of  doctrines, 
unless  we  suppose  that  He  delivered  diftercnt  sets  of  doctrines, 
which  is  impossible.  But  does  the  Church,  divided  into 
opposing  branches,  teach  one  set  of  doctrines  V  It  does  not, 
and  cannot,  consequently  she  cannot  teach,  and  therefore  she 
has  failed.  She  is,  also,  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as 
the  pillar  and  g round  of  the  truth.  How  can  she  be  the 
pillar  of  the  truth,  when  she  can  no  longer  tell  us  what  the 
truth  is?  How  can  she  be  a  pillar,  when  she  has  herself 
crumbled  into  fragments  ?  I  might  proceed  in  this  way,  to 
prove  from  other  portions  of  tlie  Scriptures,  that  the  notion 
of  a  Church  divided  into  distinct  branches  is  at  variance  with 
the  truth,  were  it  deemed  necessary.  But,  why  labor  to  dis- 
prove that  which  is  so  palpably  folse  from  the  very  self-con- 
tradiction which  it  involves.  A  man  must  be  sadly  blinded 
by  prejudice  or  theory,  who  does  not  at  once  perceive  that 
the  Church  cannot,  at  the  same  time,  be  one,  and  yet  "di- 
vided ;"  cannot  be  the  One  Church,  and  yet  separate  and 
opposing  sects. 

It  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  say  any  thing  further  upon 
this  point,  and  yet  I  must  make  one  more  observation  before 
I  leave  it.  In  the  Creed,  we  profess  to  believe  in  the  "  One 
Church."  Now,  how  can  you  heliece  in  the  One  Church,  if 
that  Church  be  rent,  as  you  say  it  is,  into  distinct  divisions. 
These  divisions,  or  branches  as  you  call  them,  oppose,  contra- 
dict, and  denounce  each  other.*     You  cannot  believe  in  all 

«•  Thus,  while  the  Roman  Catholic  Cluirch,  as  well  as  the  Russian 
Church,  teaches  the  doctrine  of  invocation  of  saints,  purgatory.  &c., 

16 


170  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

of  them.  And  if  you  believe  one  division,  you  must  disbe- 
lieve the  other.  You  believe  in  your  own  division  of  this 
imaginary  Church  perhaps,  but  as  the  other  divisions  teach 
the  very  opposite  doctrines,  you  cannot  believe  also  in  them. 
The  consequence  is,  that  you  cannot  believe  in  the  Church, 
but  only  in  a  jjor^  of  it !  But  to  believe  in  a  part  of  the 
Chiu-ch,  is  not  to  believe  in  the  Chui'ch,  according  to  the 
Creed  which  requires  you  to  believe  in  the  Chm'ch  as  one, 
whole  and  undivided.  I  may  fairly  push  this  argument  fur- 
ther. I  may  truly  assert  that  you  cannot  believe  even  in  one 
part,  not  even  in  your  own  branch,  or  rather  division  ;  for  this 
last  is  the  most  corx-ect  term,  since  you  admit  the  Church  to 
be  "divided."  To  believe  in  the  Chm'ch,  or  a  part  of  the 
Church,  is  to  receive  her  teaching  with  a  firm  persuasion  of 
its  truth.  Now,  since  all  the  divisions  of  the  Church  must 
possess  equal  authority,  you  cannot  be  firmly  persuaded  of 
the  truth  of  what  is  taught  by  your  own  division,  when  its 
teaching  is  contradicted  by  other  divisions.  These  divisions 
are  precisely  like  several  witnesses  of  equal  authority  and 
credibility.  If  they  contradict  each  other  in  their  testimony, 
you  cannot  believe  any  of  them.  Hence,  it  is  evident,  that 
whatever  may  be  your  partiality  for  youi-  own  division,  you 
cannot  helieve  in  it,  because  it  is  contradicted  by  other  divi- 
sions of  equal  authority.  The  argument  may  be  more  strong- 
ly put,  for  the  other  divisions  are  in  fact  of  greater  authority 
than  yours,  for  the  Greek  or  Russian  Church,  as  well  as  the 
"Roman  Church,"  (to  adopt  your  phraseology)  is  either  of 
them  not  only  five  times  as  old,  but  twenty  or  thirty  times 
as  large  as  yours.  But  these  divisions  are  not  only  larger 
and  older  :  they  agree  together  in  teaching  the  very  doctrines 
which  you  reject  as  false,  such  as  invocation  of  saints,  pur- 
gatory, mass  for  the  dead,  &c.  Can  you  then  believe  your 
own  division,  when  it  is  contradicted  by  the  combined  testi- 
mony of  all  the  other  divisions,  including  the  Armenians, 
Nestorians,  and  other  oriental  sects,  which  agree  with  the 
Russian  and  Roman  communions  on  these  points  ?  Certain- 
ly yoii  cannot :  unless  you  believe  the  less  in  preference  to 
the  greater :  unless  you  believe  the  testimony  of  one,  in  pre- 


your  Cliurcli,  and  the  Anglican  Church,  in  the  Tliirty-Nine  Articles, 
denounce  these  doctrines  as  "  vainly  invented,  and  repugnant  to  the 
woi'd  of  God,"  and  pronounce  the  sacrifice  of  masses  "blaspliemous 
follies  and  dangerous  deceits.''     {See  Art.  22  and  31.) 


LKTTKii   vr.  177 

ference  to  the  united  testimouy  of  half  a  dozen  more  compe- 
tent witnesses.* 

But,  it  is  time  to  lini.sli  the  discussion  of  this  point.  I 
have  now  shown  you  that  the  "  One  Church"  of  tlie  Creed, 
cannot  be  divided  into  distinct  and  "  independent  branches," 
and  that  if  it  were  so  divided  it  would  be  impossible  to  be- 
lieve in  it,  or  in  any  part  of  it,  and  much  less  in  the  very 
small  and  very  recent  division  of  it  to  which  you  belong. 
What  then  is  the  deduction  from  this  reasoning?  It  is  this, 
that  since  the  One  Church  of  the  Creed  cannot  be  found  in 
an  ideal  union  of  all  these  various  di\nsions  of  Christendom, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  one,  it  must  be 
sought  in  some  one  single  communion  of  these  so-called 
"branches  or  divisions."  The  question  then  arises,  which 
of  these  communions  is  the  true  fold,  the  One  Church,  the 
one  body  of  Christ.  This  fjuestion  may  be  better  consider- 
ed when  we  shall  have  examined  the  other  marks  of  the 
Church  laid  down  in  the  Creed,  viz:  "Holy,  Catholic  and 
Apostolic,"  for  the  true  Church  must  possess  them  all.  But 
what  I  have  said  upon  the  first  mark  is  sufiicient  to  prove, 
that  the  one  only  Church  is  either  your  own  division  or 
some  other  communion,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  every  other 
ecclesiastical  denomination.  And  this,  my  friend,  is  enough, 
if  you  will  alloAv  me  to  say  it,  to  overthrow  your  claims  en- 
tirely, since  you  do  not  allege,  or  even  pretend,  that  your 
division  is  the  one  only  Church  of  God  upon  earth.  It  is 
either  the  whole  or  nothing.  You  admit  it  is  not  the  whole. 
Therefore,  it  is  nothing. 

But,  let  us  now  briefly  examine  the  other  marks  of  the 
Church,  and  see  where  they  belong.  The  Church  is  not 
only  One,  but  she  is  Uohi.     It  is  not  necessary  to  give  a 

*5Ianj  High  Churchmen  imagine  thej  find  support  for  their  peculiar 
theory  and  position  in  the  condition  of  these  oriental  sects.  A  few 
years  ago,  an  Anglican  Clergyman  of  this  class,  under  this  impression 
visited  the  East,  exi)ecting  to  find  there  the  sympathj-  he  so  much 
needed.  But  he  was  sadly  disappointed.  He  afterwards  published 
the  results  in  a  book,  in  the  Preface  to  which,  he  says  :  "My  hope  in 
the  then  state  of  my  belief,  was,  that  I  should  there  find  support  for 
the  '"High  Church" '  ^^ews  in  the  religious  state  of  the  East.  Never 
was  there  a  more  signal  mistake."  [Jonrnal  of  a  Tour  in  Egyjit^  Pa- 
lestine, (jr.  By  .1.  L.  Patterson,  M.  A.)  In  the  same  connection,  as 
well  as  in  an  Appendix,  he  states  that  these  ancient  sects  deny  the 
claims  and  the  orders  of  Anglicanism.  This  author,  subsequently, 
became  a  Catholic. 


178  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOrALIAX. 

• 

lengthened  exposition  of  the  meaning  of  this  term.  There 
is  no  diiference  upon  this  point,  I  beheve,  between  your  own 
writers  and  Catholics.  They  all  agree  that  the  Church  is 
called  "  holy,"  because  her  teaching  is  holy,  and  because  she 
is  separate  from  a  wicked  world,  and  calls  her  members  to  a 
holy  state,  and  is  the  means  of  rendering  them  holy,  and 
also  because  she  is  the  divine  spouse  of  our  Most  Holy  Re- 
deemer, to  whom  she  is  inseparably  united.* 

Now  let  me  ask  you  where  is  this  "holy"  Church,  in 
which  you  profess  to  believe  ?  Can  the  Church  universal, 
such  as  she  is  described  by  your  writers,  be  holy — a  Church 
distracted  and  torn  by  divisions,  sjilit  into  several  opposing 
and  contending  sects  V  Schism  is  represented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures as  a  deadly  sin,  as  your  own  clergy  generally  admit 
and  teach.  And  yet,  if  your  theory  of  the  universal  Church 
be  true,  then  the  whole  Church  is  involved  in  this  deadly 
sin;  for  the  whole  Church,  (if  we  can  call  that  "whole" 
which  is  broken  into  pieces,)  instead  of  maintaining  unity, 
is  rent  and  divided — is  in  a  state  of  schism  !  Thus,  this  sin, 
which  she  has  been  accusing  the  sects  of,  lies  at  her  own 
door !  Certainly,  a  Church  thus  involved  in  deadly  sin,  can- 
not be  "holy."  It  follows,  therefore,  that  such  a  Church 
is  not  the  One,  Holy  Church  of  the  Creed.  This  argument 
might  be  greatly  strengthened  by  a  more  specific  appeal  to 
the  Scriptures.  You  remember  how  severely  St.  Paul  re- 
bukes the  Corinthian  Christians  on  account  of  their  divisions 
or  factions.  He  calls  them  "carnal,"  and  not  spiritual. 
' '  For  ye  are  yet  carnal :  for  whereas  there  is  among  you  en- 
vying and  strife  and  divisions,  are  ye  not  carnal  and  walk  as 
men  T  If  mere  divisions  or  parties  in  a  congregation  be  so 
worthy  of  censure,  how  much  more  so  must  be  divisions 
which  rend  into  sects  the  universal  Church,  involving  the 
members  of  every  section  in  animosity  and  strife,  and  excit- 
ing the  contempt  and  derision  of  that  world  to  which  it  was 
to  be  a  light  and  guide ! 

••■■That  the  Chvu-ch  may  be  called  "holj-,"  it  is  not  requisite  that  all 
the  members  be  holj-.  Our  Lord  predicted  that  there  should  be  "tares 
amono:  the  wheat  Avhich  should  grow  together  until  harvest."  This 
is  maintained  by  your  own  standard  divine,  Bishop  Pearson  : — "With- 
in, therefore,  the  notion  of  the  Church,  are  comprehended  good  and 
bad,  being  both  externally  called,  and  both  professing  the  same  faith.'' 
{Expos,  of  Creed.    Art.  ix.) 


LETTEK     VI.  179 

The  Cbiirch  is  also  tailed  "holy,"  because  her  teachiug, 
moral  and  doctrinal,  is  holy.  But  the  teaching  of  a  Church 
divided  into  independent  branches,  cannot  be  holy.  These 
branches,  as  we  have  seen,  teach  contradictory  doctrines. 
Where  there  is  contradiction  of  doctrine,  there  must  be  false- 
hood ;  and  falsehood  cannot  consist  with  holiness.  Conse- 
quently, your  branch  ('hurch  cannot  be  "  holy."  Therefore 
your  branch  (Church  is  not  the  Church  of  the  Creed. 

While  treating  on  this  point,  I  cannot  forbear  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  inconsistency  of  this  theory,  with  your  ordi- 
nary denunciation  of  what  you  call  the  "  lloman  Church." 
According  to  this  theory  the  Roman  Church  is  a  part,  a 
"branch."  of  the  universal  Church:  this  your  divines,  as 
we  have  seen,  expressly  admit.  Yet  you  are  in  the  habit  of 
denouncing  the  Koman  Church  as  false,  corrupt,  idolatrous, 
&c.  How  can  these  things  agree  together?  If  the  Church, 
in  the  aggregate,  be  holy,  the  various  parts  or  branches  must 
be  holy  too.  This  must  necessarily  be  the  case  upon  your 
theory.  No  portion  of  the  Church  can  be  an  "  independent 
branch"  of  the  Church,  without  possessing  all  the  attributes 
of  the  Church.  IJut  sanctity  is  one  of  the  attributes  and 
marks  of  the  Church ;  consequently,  sanctity  must  be  pos- 
sessed bj^  every  branch  And  if  sanctity  be  possessed  by 
every  branch,  it  must  be  possessed  by  the  Koman  branch. 
And  if  the  Koman  branch  be  holy,  are  you  not  guilty  of  the 
grossest  inconsistency  and  cakunny  in  calling  her  corrupt 
and  folse  ?  Ah,  my  friend,  your  Church  theory  and  theology 
and  ecclesiastical  vocabulary  are  sadly  out  of  joint,  and  no 
better  than  a  confused  jargon. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  consider  the  third  attribute  or  mark 
of  the  Church  of  the  Creed.  I  believe  in  One,  Holy,  Ca- 
tholic and  Apostolic  Church.  The  Church  of  the  Creed, 
then,  is   "  Catholic." 

I  need  not  tell  you  that  the  word  ' '  Catholic"  is  derived 
from  the  Greek  language  (in  which  this  creed  was  originally 
composed)  and  signifies  unicerml.  It  is  used  to  designate 
the  diifusive  and  expansive  character  of  the  Church,  as 
spread  or  spreading  over  the  whole  earth.  This  idea  is 
more  clearly  expressed  in  these  words  of  the  Te  Deum,  upon 
which  I  have  already  commented — ' '  The  Holy  Church 
throughont  all  the.  vorld."  The  Catholic  Church  is  the 
Church  throughout  all  the  uorld.  Like  the  other  marks  of 
the  Church,  this  serves  to  distinguish  it  from  the  sects.  The 
16* 


180  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

sects  are  invariably  local,  coufinecl  to  one  country,  or  to  one 
portion  of  the  globe  ;  whereas  the  true  Church  is  not  thus 
confined,  but  extends  over  all  nations  and  countries  on  the 
face  of  the  whole  earth.  That  this  is  the  true  definition  of 
the  term,  can  be  proved  from  your  own  authorities.  Thus, 
Bishojj  Pearson,  discoursing  upon  the  term,  says:  "Al- 
though this  seems  the  first  intention  of  those  which  gave  the 
name  Catholic  to  the  Church,  to  signify  thereby  nothing  else 
but  the  whole  or  universal  Church.  *  *  *  At  first  they 
called  the  whole  Church  Catholic,  meaning  no  more  than  the 
universal  Church ;  but  having  used  the  term  some  space  of 
time,  they  considered  how  the  nature  of  the  Church  was  to 
be  universal,  and  in  what  that  universality  did  consist.  *  *  * 
The  most  obvious  and  most  general  notion  of  this  Catholic- 
ism consistetli  in  the  difl'usiveness  of  the  Church,  grounded 
upon  the  commission  given  to  the  builders  of  it,  "  CrO  teach 
all  nations,"  whereby  they  and  their  successors  were  autho- 
rized and  empowered  to  gather  congregations  of  believers, 
and  so  to  extend  the  borders  of  the  Church  unto  the  utmost 
parts  of  the  earth."  (Expos,  of  Creed,  pp.  504,  505.)  In 
a  foot-note,  Pearson  adds  :  "I  conceive,  at  first,  there  was 
no  other  meaning  in  the  word  Ka^oA/x-/;,  (Catholic)  than 
what  the  Grreek  language  did  signify  thereby,  that  is,  tota  or 
imiversa,"  and  proceeds  to  give  examples  of  its  use  from  St. 
Augustin,  and  from  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  SS.  Ignatius, 
Clemens  and  Polycarp,  who  lived  in  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  of  course,  received  their  ideas  of  the  Church  from 
the  very  fountain  head.*     It  would  be  easy  to  adduce  simi- 

®  In  the  interi^retation  of  ancient  documents,  there  is  no  better 
method  than  to  inquire  how  their  terms  were  understood  by  contempo- 
rary writers.  Let  me  therefore,  cjuote  a  few  passages  from  the  fathers 
of  the  fourth  century,  in  regard  to  the  term  "Catholic."  St.  Cyril 
says,  ' '  The  Church  is  called  Catholic  because  it  is  diffused  over  the 
whole  earth."  St.  Augustine,  arguing  against  the  schismatic  Dona- 
tists,  says — "This  Church  is  one,  denominated  by  our  ancestors  Ca- 
tholic, to  denote,  bj'  the  very  name,  that  it  is  everywhere  diffused.^'  St. 
Optatus,  opposing  the  same  sect,  says :  '  •  We  prove  to  you  that  the 
Catholic  Church  is  that  which  is  diffused  through  the  whole  earth." 
From  these  and  other  similar  passages,  which  might  be  c^uoted,  it  is 
clear  that  the  term  "Catholic"  means  w«w'e;-saZ,  diffused  over  the  earth. 
The  use  of  the  term  in  this  sense,  can  be  traced  to  the  very  age  of  the 
Apostles.  In  the  epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  it  is  said  that  St. 
Polycarp,  Avho  was  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  the  Apostle,  offered  up  his 
prayers  for  the  members  of  the  "Avhole  Catholic  Church  diffused 
throughout  the  world."  This  is  one  of  the  passages  cited  by  Bishop 
Pearson . 


LETTER     VI.  181 

lav  testimony  from  other  standard  divines  of  your  commu- 
nion in  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  definition,  but  it 
cannot  be  necessary.  It  is  true  this  word  has  also  its  deri- 
vative meanings,  which  arc  noticed  by  Pearson  in  pretty 
much  the  same  way  as  they  are  given  by  our  own  theolo- 
gians. Thus,  the  Church  is  called  Catholic,  because  it 
teaches  the  whole  truth,  all  that  a  Christian  should  know — 
because  it  enjoins  universal  obedience — and  also  because  it 
confers  all  the  spiritual  virtues  and  graces.  But  these  arc 
but  secondary  meanings.  Its  primary  and  principal  mean- 
ing in  the  Creed  is,  as  I  have  shewn,  universal,  diffused 
generally  over  the  earth. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  Church  in  which  you  profess 
to  believe  according  to  the  Creed,  must  be  spread  generally 
over  the  earth,  and  not  limited  to  any  one  nation  or  country. 
Which  is  that  Church  ?  It  cannot  be  j'our  own  little  de- 
nomination, which  is  confined  to  this  small  portion  of  the 
globe.  You  do  not  even  profess  that  it  is.  Where,  then, 
do  you  find  it?  You  profess,  perhaps,  to  find  it  in  the  va- 
rious ''  branches"  of  which  I  have  been  speaking.  But  this 
notion  is  utterly  untenable.  These  "  branches,"  or  rather 
divisions,  (for  I  have  shewn  they  are  nothing  else,)  may  in- 
deed be  found  in  the  various  parts  of  the  earth — one  here, 
and  another  there ;  but  so  also  may  those  denominations 
which  you  admit  to  be  sects  and  nothing  more.  These  various 
branches  or  divisions  of  your  theoretical  Church,  may  be 
found  all  over  the  earth,  but  they  cannot  be  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  Creed,  for  this  reason — they  lack  the  first  at- 
tribute of  the  Church  of  the  Creed,  which  is  Unity.  I  be- 
lieve One,  Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.  Here  are 
foui*  attributes  laid  down.  The  true  Church  must  possess 
them  all,  and  not  merely  one  or  two.  Your  imaginary 
branches  may  be  universal,  as  they  are  found  in  every  quar- 
ter of  the  globe ;  but  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  one,  but 
many,  they  cannot  be  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  Creed, 
which  is  one,  and  one  only. 

But  I  shall  have  something  further  to  say  respecting  the 
application  of  these  marks,  after  I  shall  have  considered  them 
all.  Let  us  now  take  a  brief  view  of  the  fourth  and  last 
mark  of  the  Church,  which  is  Apostolicity.  "I  believe 
One,  Holy,  Catholic  and  AjMstolic  Church."  The  fourth 
mark  is  implied  in  the  epithet  "  Apostolic."  Wliat  then  is 
the  meaning  of  this  term  '!     I  heed  not  tell  you  the  word  is 


182  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

derived  from  the  name  given  to  the  first  ministers  and  found- 
ers of  the  Church  ;  that  is,  Ajwstles.  And  it  is  in  this  deri- 
vation that  we  are  to  seek  its  true  import.  You  remember 
that  these  Apostles  began  the  formation  of  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem,  by  the  preaching  of  St.  Peter.  Of  this  event, 
we  read  as  follows  :  ' '  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 
were  baptised ;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto 
them  about  three  thousand  souls.  And  they  continued  stead- 
fastly in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellou-shij)."  (Acts  ii, 
41,  42.)  Here  was  the  newly-foimded  Church.  It  was  the 
Apostles^  fellowship,  that  is,  communion  or  Church,  begun 
by  St.  Peter.  The  first  and  true  Church,  then,  was  the 
Church  of  the  Apostles ;  and  the  term  Apostolic  is  used  to 
designate  that  Church — the  Chui'ch  founded  by  them ;  the 
Church  which  they  instructed  and  governed  while  they  re- 
mained on  earth.  But  how  was  it  when  they  "  fell  asleep" 
and  departed  to  their  eternal  reward.  They  had  previously 
taken  care  to  provide  other  teachers  and  governors  for  the 
infant  Chiu'ch ;  such  as  Timothy,  Titus,  Linus  and  many 
others,  who  succeeded  them  in  office  and  jurisdiction.  This 
Church,  governed  by  those  appointed  by  the  Ajiostles,  con- 
tinued afterwards  to  be  the  Apostles'  Church,  became  the 
same  "  fellowship,"  communion  and  Church,  which  they 
had  originally  established.  This  was  the  same  Chui-ch  rep- 
resented by  the  Cleneral  Council  of  Constantinople,  which 
composed  the  Creed  ;  and  this  was,  of  course,  the  Chui'ch  to 
which  they  referred,  when  they  used  the  term,  the  Apostolic 
Church,  meaning  the  Chiirch  of  the  Apostles,  founded  by 
the  Apostles,  and  descending  down  to  their  own  day.  And 
as  the  Church  is  the  same  in  every  age,  and  as  the  Creed 
must  be  used  in  the  sense  intended  by  its  original  authors, 
the  Apostolic  Church  of  the  present  day  must  be  the  Church 
of  the  Apostles,  the  Church  founded  by  the  Apostles,  and 
descended  uninterruptedly  and  continuously,  from  their  age 
down  to  the  present  day.  I  say  it  must  be  the  very  same 
Church — the  identical  Church  established  by  the  Apostles. 
It  is  not  enough  that  it  be  a  similar  Church.  Identity  and 
similarity  are  very  different  things.  One  person  may  be  very 
much  like  another,  so  much  so  that  you  cannot  tell  them 
apart,  yet  they  are  not  one  and  the  same  person,  but  two 
distinct  and  independent  beings.  Two  oak  trees  may  also  be 
very  similar  to  each  other,  differing  as  to  external  appear- 
ance only  in  point  of  size  and  vigor,  yet  no  one  would  think 


LETTER    VI 


183 


of  calling  tliciu  one  and  the  same  tree.  This  figure  of  a 
tree  may  be  very  well  employed  to  make  this  point  plain  to 
the  humblest  capacity,  because  our  Divine  Saviour  himself 
sanctioned  its  use  for  this  purpose,  when  he  compared  his 
kingdom  to  a  tree.  Wo  have  all  seen  or  read  of  venerable 
oaks,  which  although  still  green  and  flourishing,  date  their 
origin  many  hundred  years  ago.  Lot  us  imagine  one  such 
oak  to  have  been  planted  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  and 
let  us  suppose  this  tree  to  have  been  the  depository  of  some 
peculiar  healing  virtue,  and  to  have  continued  in  existence, 
growing  and  flourishing  in  every  succeeding  age,  down  to  the 
present  moment.  Such  a  tree  would  be  the  tree  of  the  Apos- 
tles, the  Apostolic  tree.  True,  you  might  find  other  trees 
similar  to  it  in  general  appearance,  but  none  of  them  would 
be  the  same  tree  as  that,  nor  any  part  of  it.  Such  a  tree  is 
a  correct  emblem  of  the  Church.  Like  it,  the  Church  of  the 
Apostles  was  not  only  planted  by  the  Apostles,  but  it  has 
had  a  continuous  and  individual  existence  in  every  subse- 
quent age,  from  their  day  down  to  ours, — an  existence  plain, 
palpable  and  iiumistakeable,  so  that  3^ou  can  point  to  it  as 
living  and  acting,  and  exerting  an  influence  on  the  world 
around,  not  only  in  the  first,  second  and  third  centuries,  but 
in  every  intervening  century  down  to  the  nineteenth.  Such 
is,  such  must  be  the  Church  of  the  Apostles,  or  the  Apostolic 
Church.  Individuals  may  secede  or  be  exscinded  from  it, 
and  form  another  independent  communion,  very  much  resem- 
bling the  old  Church,  but  it  is  not  the  same  body,  and  no 
part  of  it ;  like  as  a  branch  cut  ofi"  from  the  tree,  ceases 
henceforth  to  be  a  part  of  that  tree. 

The  Church  is  a  body  corporate,  having  its  laws  and  offi- 
cers, for  the  purpose  of  government  and  administration  of  its 
affairs.  Its  charter,  or  tii-st  commission,  was  given  by  Jesus 
Christ  when  upon  earth,  who  thus  addressed  His  first  minis- 
ters:  "As  my  Father  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you;"  '"I 
appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  appointed  unto 
me."  These  first  ministers  commissioned  others  to  succeed 
them  in  the  government  of  this  one  body,  and  assigned  each 
one  to  his  sphere  of  labor  or  pastoral  charge.  The  persons 
thus  commissioned  by  the  Apostles,  in  their  turn  commissioned 
others,  and  also  designated  their  fields  of  ministerial  labor, 
and  so  on  down  to  the  present  time.  In  this  manner,  a  regu- 
lar succession  of  officers  has  been  kept  up  in  the  One,  Holy, 
Catholic  Church,  down  to  this  day.     This  regular  succession 


184  LETTERS     TO     AN     E  PISCOP  ALI  AN  .  _ 

is  called  the  Apostolical  succession,  because  derived  from  the 
Apostles,  and  constitutes  the  very  back-bone  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical body.  The  Chui-ch  cannot  be  Apostolic,  without  autho- 
rity from  the  Apostles  ;  and  it  is  manifest  that  no  such  autho- 
rity can  now  be  possessed,  unless  received  by  uninterrupted 
succession,  such  as  I  have  pointed  out.  And  this  succession 
truly  possessed,  renders  the  Church  Apostolic,  because  con- 
necting her  by  descent  with  the  Apostles,  making  her 
heir  to  the  same  communion  and  authority,  and  proving  her 
to  be  one  and  the  same  Church.  But  I  wish  you  to  observe 
particularly,  that  this  succession  is  not  merely  a  succession  of 
orders,  but  also  of  jurisdiction.  Your  own  writers  strenu- 
ously maintain  the  doctrine  of  "  Apostolical  Succession,"  so 
far  as  ordination  is  concerned  ;  but  they  generally  have  little 
or  nothing  to  say  upon  the  subject  of  jurisdiction,  although 
the  latter  is  just  as  necessary  as  the  former.  A  bishop  may 
have  valid  ordination  or  consecration  ;  but  that  is  not  enough — 
he  must  have  also  a  certain  prescribed  territory,  called  a  dio- 
cess,  in  which  to  exercise  his  episcopal  functions.  Such  was 
plainly  the  case  in  the  Apostolic  age.  Thus,  when  Timothy 
was  made  bishop,  he  was  assigned  to  Ephesus — and  to  Titus 
also  was  assigned  the  jurisdiction  of  Crete.  And  so  it  has 
been  in  every  succeeding  age.  A  bishop  was  never  allowed 
to  roam  at  large,  or  wherever  he  pleased  ;  perchance  invading 
other  bishops'  fields  of  labor,  and  thus  introducing  discord 
and  confusion.  But  if  not  thus  to  roam  as  he  pleases,  he 
must  have  a  particular  territory  assigned  him,  like  Timothy  and 
Titus,  and  this  territory  must  be  assigned  him  by  the  Church, 
and  this  assignment  is  called  mission  or  jurisdiction. 

We  now  understand,  then,  what  is  meant  when  the 
Church  is  called  "Apostolic:"  that  she  is  the  identical 
Church  established  by  the  Apostles,  continuing  in  being  in 
every  subsequent  age,  by  an  uninterrupted  succession  of 
bishops,  pastors,  and  governors,  each  and  every  one  of  whom 
received  his  orders  and  jurisdiction  from  those  preceding 
him,  and  thus  from  the  Apostles  and  fi-om  Christ  himself. 

I  have  now  set  before  you,  a  brief  explanation  of  the  four 
leading  attributes,  or  characteristics  of  the  Church,  as  found 
in  the  Creed,  viz  : — Unity,  Sanctity,  Catholicity  and  Apos- 
tolicity.  These  are  the  four  marks  set  by  the  Fathers  of 
the  Council  of  Constantinople,  in  the  fourth  century,  to  en- 
able the  sincere  followers  of  Christ  to  distinguish  the  true 
Church  from  the  heretical  and  schismatical  societies  around. 
And  fi-om  that  day  down  to  the  present  time,  every  true 


LETTKK     VI.  185 

Chiu'chmau  Las  ajjpealed  to  those  marks  in  seasons  of  doubt 
or  difficulty,  and  they  have  proved  to  be  a  "  huup  t<i  his  feet 
and  a  light  to  his  path."  By  retaining  the  Creed  in  your 
liturgy,  you  acknowledge  the  reality  of  these  marks,  and  it 
only  remain.s  for  you  to  int^uire  seriously  and  impartially  in 
•what  body  of  Christians  the  said  marks  are  now  to  be  found. 
You  cannot  now  doubt,  that  wherever  these  four  marks  are 
foimd,  there,  and  there  only,  is  the  true  Church,  to  which, 
and  to  which  only,  you  owe  allegiance. 

The  question  then  arises,  what  Church  has  these  four  marks 
of  the  Creed  V  Does  yoiu*  own  Church  possess  them  ?  Ex- 
amine and  see.  Has  it  Unity?  External  unity  it  has,  as 
one  organized  body.  But  this  is  not  all  that  is  implied  in 
unity.  The  Methodists,  and  the  Presbyterians,  and  other 
denominations,  all  have  external  unity.  But  there  is  an  in- 
ternal unit}'  which  is  also  necessary  for  the  Church  of  God ; 
that  is  unity  of  doctrine.  Has  your  Church  unity  of  doc- 
trine? You  know  she  has  not.  You  know  too  well  how 
her  clergy  and  bishops  are  divided  upon  many  of  the  great 
doctrines  of  religion.  Instead  of  being  One  in  this  sense, 
there  are  more  divisions  among  jou  than  you  can  find  in  any 
other  denomination  of  professing  Christians.  What  mean 
these  terms  among  you:  High  Church  and  Low  Church, 
Puseyite  and  Evangelical  ?  What  are  they  but  the  names 
of  so  many  parties  among  you,  each  holding  a  distinct  and 
opposite  set  of  doctrines.  Their  differences  do  not  concern 
mere  trifling  points,  but  the  very  fundamentals  of  practical 
religion.  They  are  divided  upon  the  momentous  question  of 
Justification,  how  a  sinner  becomes  just  or  righteous  before 
God.  They  are  divided  as  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  Epis- 
copacy, although  your  Church  takes  its  very  name  and  being 
from  that  divine  order.  They  are  divided  upon  the  fact  and 
nature  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Eucharist.  They  are  di- 
vided upon  the  question  of  Baptismal  regeneration,  a  ques- 
tion involving  the  nature  and  power  of  the  Sacrament,  and 
the  very  source  and  beginning  of  the  spiritual  life  of  the 
Christian.  Upon  all  these  momentous  (Questions,  and  others 
also,  your  bishops,  as  well  as  clergy,  are  at  open  variance, 
one  party  teaching  as  truth  what  the  otlier  part}'  denounces 
as  soul-destroj'ing  error.  Amid  so  much  contradictory 
teaching  by  the  pastors  and  chief  ministers  of  your  Church, 
all  unity  of  doctrine  is  at  an  end,  and  the  unhappy  people 
are  either  confounded  and  bewildered,  or  reduced  to  tlie  no- 


186  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

■cessity  of  taking  part  in  the  controversies  which  divide  the 
bishops  and  pastors,  and  judge  for  themselves  which  side 
they  shall  receive  as  true.  They  thus  often  decide  upon  the 
soundness  or  unsoundness  of  the  doctrines  of  their  spiritual 
pastors,  and  governing  bishops !  This  lack  of  unity  is  seen 
also  in  youi-  doctrinal  standards.  Youi*  very  Prayer-Book 
is  marred  by  contradictions.  The  litiu-gy,  and  the  Thirty- 
J^ine  Articles,  are  at  variance.  This,  indeed,  is  the  cause 
of  the  dissensions  and  parties  among  you,  to  which  I  have 
alluded.  As  a  specimen  of  the  contradiction  of  your  Prayer- 
Book,  let  me  mention,  that  while  in  the  Creed  you  assert 
that  "remission  of  sins"  is  obtained  in  Baptism,  in  your 
11th  article  you  declare  that  a  man  is  "justified  by  faith 
only."  There  is  a  similar  contrariety  between  the  Prayer- 
Book  and  the  Homilies — although  the  latter  are  expresslj" 
approved  by  the  former  as  sound  in  doctrine.  Thus,  the 
Prayer-Book  teaches,  that  "from  the  A^wstles'  time  there 
have  been  these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Chm'ch — 
Bisho2)S,  Priests  and  Deacons,"  (_Pref.  to  Ordin.  Service,') 
while  one  of  the  Homilies  asserts  that  the  whole  of  Chris- 
tendom was  drowned  in  abominable  idolatry  for  the  space  of 
eight  hundred  years!  {Bool i  of  Hom.  p.  216.)  These  are 
palpable  contradictions.  Your  denomination,  consecjuently. 
lacks  the  first  mark  of  the  true  Church. 

Has  it  the  second  mark — Sanctity  ?  There  are  doubtless, 
many  excellent  and  pious  people  among  you — but  that  does 
not  make  your  communion  "holy."  You  may  find,  as  you 
admit,  many  excellent  and  pious  people  among  other  Protest- 
ant denominations.  Your  Church  cannot  be  "holy,"  unless 
her  teaching  be  "holy  ;"  but  that  teaching  cannot  be  "holy" 
which  is  contradictory,  for  where  there  is  contradiction  there 
must  be  falsehood,  and  falsehood  and  sanctity  cannot  co- 
exist, as  I  have  already  shown  you.  Besides,  a  '  'holy"  Church 
must  produce  "holy"  men  and  women,  that  is  "saints." 
What  saints  has  your  Church  ever  produced  since  its  forma- 
tion, about  half  a  century  ago?  When  you  undertook  to 
revise  the  Prayer-Book,  you  turned  many  saints  out  of  the 
Calendar,  but  you  have  not  since  made  any  new  ones  to  sup- 
ply their  place.  Your  Calendar  is  just  as  it  was  then,  not  a 
single  name  of  all  your  bishops,  clergy  and  laity,  has  been 
found  worthy  to  be  enrolled  therein. 

Has  your  Church  the  third  mark — Catholicity?  The 
Church  of  the  Creed  is  not  only  One  and  Holy ;  she  is  also 


LETTER     VI.  187 

Datbolic,  that  is,  universal;  she  is  the  "Iluly  Church 
throughout  all  the  world."  Is  your  Church  universal?  Is 
she  spread  among  the  different  countries  and  nations  of  the 
earth,  evangelizing  them  and  binding  them  together  in  the 
"  one  fold  V"  A'ery  far  from  it.  She  is  confined  to  our  own 
country,  and  scarcely  known  in  the  greater  part  of  it.  She 
is  not  only  confined  to  a  portion  of  this  single  country,  but 
she  is  cut  off'  from  connuunion  with  the  Churches  of  all  other 
countries,  scarcely  excepting  that  of  England,  with  which 
she  enjoys  a  limited  and  doubtful  sort  of  intercourse — not 
union  and  connnimion,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  terms.  You 
have  no  communion  with  the  Church  as  found  in  the  various 
countries  of  Europe,  Asia  and  Africa,  but  enjoy  only  an  iso- 
lated existence  in  a  very  small  part  of  one  quarter  of  the 
globe.  Consequently,  your  Church  is  not  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  Creed.  You  cannot,  and  do  not,  pretend  that 
she  is.  The  very  name  by  which  you  have  christened  her, 
shows  that  she  is  not.  You  have  called  her  "  the  Protest- 
ant Episeoixal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 
Thus  you  have  renounced  the  ancient  and  orthodox  title  of 
the  Church  as  handed  down  in  both  the  Apostles'  and  Ni- 
cene  Creeds — the  title  of  ' '  Catholic" — and  adopted  a  new- 
fangled name,  one  never  heard  of  before,  one  purely  denomi- 
national and  sectarian.  This  name  condemns  you — it  shows 
j-our  modern  origin  and  your  isolated  condition.  Your 
Church  cannot  be  "  Protestant,"  and  at  the  same  time  '•  Ca- 
tholic." The  two  terms  are  antagonistic  and  contradictory. 
The  creeds  handed  down  from  primitive  times,  show  what  has 
always  been  the  name  of  the  true  Church  of  God  ;  and  if 
you  examine  those  "  ancient  authors,"  to  which  your  Prayer- 
Book  appeals  in  support  of  Episcopacy,  3-ou  will  see  what  im- 
portance they  attached  to  this  name  in  their  disputes  with  the 
sects  of  their  day.  Even  St.  Ignatius,  who  was  contempo- 
rary with  the  Apostles,  says  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Smyrnaians, 
"Christ  is  where  the  Catholic  Church  is."  St.  Cyril,  who 
was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  at  the  time  the  Creed  of  Constanti- 
nople was  formed,  says  in  his  Catechetical  Lectures — "  The 
Church  is  called  Catholic,  because  it  is  diffu.sed  over  the 
whole  earth."  Again,  says  this  holy  patriarch — "  Avoid  the 
conventicles  of  those  heretics ;  persevere  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  in  which  you  were  baptized.  Should  you  come  into 
a  city,  do  not  inquire  merely  for  the  house  of  God,  for  so 
heretics  call  their  places  of  meetinc,  nor  yet  ask  merely  for 
17 


188  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  Church,  but  say  the  Catholic  Church — for  this  is  the 
proper  name."  Now,  my  friend,  do  you  act  thus  when  you 
go  to  a  strange  city  ?  You  know  you  do  not.  You  inquire 
for  the  "Episcopal  Church."  Were  you  to  inquire  for  the 
Catholic  Church,  you  know  very  well  that  you  would  be  sent 
where  you  would  not  wish  to  go.  Another  of  those  "an- 
cient authors,"  St.  Pacian,  a  Spanish  bishop  of  the  same  pe- 
riod, says:  "Christian  is  my  name,  Catholic  is  my  sur- 
name :  by  the  former  I  am  called,  by  the  latter  I  am  distin- 
guished. By  the  name  of  Catholic  our  society  is  distin- 
guished from  all  heretics."  {Ep.  \,  ad  Symp.)  But  none 
of  the  fathers  attaches  more  importance  to  this  name  than 
that  eminent  and  well-known  doctor  of  the  early  Church,  St. 
Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo.  "Many  things,"  he  says, 
' '  detain  me  in  the  Catholic  Church  :  the  very  name  of  Ca- 
tholic detains  me  in  it,  which  she  has  so  happily  preserved 
amidst  the  different  heretics ;  that  whereas  they  are  all  de- 
sirous of  being  called  Catholics^  yet  if  any  stranger  were  to 
ask  them  which  is  the  assembly  of  the  Catholics,  none  of 
them  would  dare  to  point  out  his  own  place  of  worship." 
(jContra  Epist.  Fundam.)  Are  you  detained  in  your  Church 
by  the  name  ' '  Catholic  ?"  Surely  not.  You  have  dis- 
carded that  "venerable  name,  and  dubbed  your  newl}" 
founded  society,  the  "Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  Ob- 
serve how  truly  the  remainder  of  this  passage  from  St.  Au- 
gustine applies  to  the  present  state  of  things  among  you. 
Some  of  your  High  Church  or  Puseyite  members,  disgusted 
with  the  sectarian  name  of  "Protestant,"  have  tried  to  get 
rid  of  it,  and  have  been  ' '  desirous  of  being  called  Catho- 
lics," just  like  those  outside  of  the  Church  in  the  days  of  St. 
Augustine.  This  same  father  further  observes — "  We  must 
hold  fast  the  communion  of  that  Church  which  is  called  Ca- 
tholic, not  only  by  her  own  children,  but  also  by  all  her  ene- 
mies." (De  Vera  Relig.')  Now  your  Church  is  not  called 
' '  Catholic"  by  her  own  children  ;  her  own  authorities  have 
named  her  "  Protestant  Episcopal."  This  is  her  only  legal 
and  authorized  name,  although  a  small  party  among  you, 
conscious  of  their  unhappy  position,  are  "desirous  of  being 
called  Catholics  ;"  but  they  cannot  succeed.  And  if  your 
Church  is  not  called  Catholic  by  her  own  children,  or  found- 
ers, still  less  i^  she  so  called  by  her  enemies.  You  are  known 
all  over  the  country  simply  as  "Protestant  Episcopalians," 
and  not  as  "  Catholics."     There  is  only  one  Church  which  is 


LETTER     VI.  189 

called  Catholic,  both  by  lier  children  and  her  enemies,  as  you 
know  very  well ;  that  Chiux-h,  whose  centre  of  authority  is 
at  Rome.  St.  Jerome,  another  ancient  father  of  great  au- 
thority, says  :  "  We  must  live  and  die  in  that  Church,  which 
having  been  founded  by  the  Apostles,  continues  down  to  the 
present  day.  If,  then,  you  should  hear  of  any  Christians 
not  deriving  their  name  fi'oni  Christ,  but  from  some  other 
founder,  as  the  Marcianites,  the  Yalentinians,  &c.,  be  per- 
suaded that  they  are  not  of  Christ's  Church,  but  of  Anti- 
christ's." (A<h\  Liicif.)  Does  not  this  passage  also  con- 
demn you  ?  Your  Church  was  not  ' '  founded  by  the  Apos- 
tles," but  set  up  by  certain  persons  who  lived  about  fifty 
years  ago ;  and  your  name  is  not  derived  from  Christ,  nor 
from  the  early  Church,  but  is  a  modern  sectarian  name,  hke 
that  of  the  Marcianites  and  other  ancient  sectarians.  The 
testimony  of  these  early  fathers  as  to  the  use  of  the  term 
"  Catholic,"  is  ju.stly  entitled  to  great  weight;  for  they  were 
confessedly  members  of  the  Church  by  which  the  Creed  of 
Constantinople  was  drawn  up,  and  actually  lived  and  wrote 
at  that  very  time.  To  them,  then,  we  have  to  look  for  the 
true  sense  of  the  Creed,  and  particularly  of  that  portion  of  it 
which  marks  out  the  Church  of  Christ,  to  which  all  must 
adhere.  Several  of  these  fathers,  including  St.  Augus- 
tine, are  enrolled  among  the  saints  in  the  Calendar  of  the 
English  Prayer-Book,  as  I  have  shewn  in  a  previous  letter; 
but  were  they  now  to  arise  from  the  dead,  and  carry  out  the 
rules  which  they  laid  down  in  their  sermons,  lectures  and 
treatises,  it  is  evident  they  would  seek  fellowship  neither  with 
the  Anghcan  nor  the  "Protestant  Episcopal  Chmxh."  There 
is  one  other  passage  in  St.  Augustine,  which  bears  conclu- 
sively against  the  isolated  condition  of  your  Church,  to  which 
I  ask  your  serious  attention.  I  have  already  had  occasion  to 
mention  the  Donatists,  a  numerous  and  powerful  sect  of  Af- 
rica in  the  fourth  century,  having  as  many  as  four  hundred 
bishops  validly  ordained  and  holding  all  the  essentials  of  the 
faith,  except  on  the  question  of  the  Church.  St.  xVugustine 
was  also  an  African  bishop,  and  wrote  a  treatise  on  the 
"  Unity  of  the  Church,"  chiefly  with  reference  to  the  Dona- 
tist  schism.  Arguing  against  that  sect,  he  declares  that  they 
who  believe  correctly  in  the  Incarnation  and  Divinity  of 
Christ,  "but  yet  so  dissent  from  His  body,  which  is  the 
Church,  that  they  do  not  communicate  with  it  as  it  is  every- 
where spread  abroad,  and  are  found  separated  in  some  par 


190  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

ticular  spot,  it  is  manifest  that  they  are  not  in  the  Catholic 
Church."  Had  these  words  been  written  with  sole  reference 
to  the  condition  of  your  Church,  they  could  not  have  been 
penned  to  describe  it  more  accurately  than  they  do.  Like 
the  Donatists  in  Afi-ica,  here  you  are  confined  to  a  small  por- 
tion of  North  America,  and  holding  no  communication  with 
the  "  Church  as  it  is  everywhere  spread  abroad,"  in  Mexico, 
Central  America,  South  America,  Europe,  Asia  and  Afi-ica. 
The  inevitable  conclusion,  according  to  St.  Augustine,  is, 
that  you  are  not  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

It  has  now  been  proved,  that  your  Church  is  destitute  of 
the  first  three  marks  of  the  true  Church,  viz :  Unity,  Sanc- 
tity, and  Catholicity ;  and  it  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  show 
that  she  is  equally  destitute  of  the  fourth,  Apostolicity  :  for 
the  absence  of  three  marks,  or  indeed  of  one  mark,  is  sufli- 
cient  to  overthrow  your  claims.  But,  nevertheless,  I  will 
not  pass  over  the  point  entirely,  but  proceed  to  show  in  a  few 
words  that  your  Church  does  not  possess  the  foiu'th  mark — 
that  she  is  not  "  Apostolic."  If  you  will  turn  back  and  re- 
peruse  what  I  have  said  concerning  the  nature  of  this  attri- 
bute of  the  Church,  you  cannot  fail  to  perceive  the  moment 
you  look  at  your  own  denomination,  that  it  does  not  possess 
it.  The  Apostolic  Church  is  the  Church  of  the  Apostles, 
founded  by  the  Apostles,  and  living  and  continuing  in  every 
subsequent  age,  down  to  the  present  time.  It  is,  consequent- 
ly, a  Church  eighteen  centuries  old.  Now,  my  friend,  is 
your  Church  such  V  Certainly  not ;  for  it  was  founded  only 
about  fifty  years  ago.  It  is,  therefore,  too  young  to  have 
been  founded  by  the  Apostles — too  young  by  only  seventeen 
hundred  and  fifty  years  !  Nor  can  you  claim  this  title,  as  a 
branch  or  off-shoot  from  some  Apostolic  Church.  For  in  the' 
first  place,  an  independent  branch,  such  as  you  claim  to  be, 
is  no  branch  at  all,  unless  it  be  a  dead  one.  A  branch  is 
only  a  true  and  living  branch  while  connected  with  the  pa- 
rent stem  or  trunk.  If,  then,  your  Church  be  Apostolic  as  a 
branch,  it  must  be  connected  with  some  other  Church  as  the 
Apostolic  stem  or  trmik.  But,  with  what  Church  founded 
by  the  Apostles  are  you  connected  ?  None  whatever.  You 
are  "independent"  and  isolated.  You  reject  the  ancient 
Churches  of  Europe  and  Asia,  and  they  also  repudiate  you. 
It  is  true  you  are  coldly  recognized  by  the  Anglican  Church 
— but  you  are  not  connected  with  it.  And,  even  if  you  were, 
the  Anglican  Church  was  no  more  founded  by  the  Apostles- 


LETTER     YI.  191 

than  )-om-  own  Cliiuch — but  by  Homy  A'lII.  ami  Queen 
Elizabeth.  Besides,  the  Apostolic  Chuich  must  have  Apos- 
tolic orders  and  jurisdiction.  In  these  you  are  equally  defi- 
cient. The  validity  of  your  Orders  is  more  tlian  (juostioncd. 
You  claim  to  have  received  tliem  from  the  Anglican  Church, 
but  the  Anglican  Church  could  not  give  what  it  never  receiv- 
ed. It  traces  its  orders  to  Parker,  whom  Queen  Elizabeth 
appointed  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  after  she  had  driven 
the  Catholic  bishops  from  their  sees.  But,  the  validity  of 
Parker's  consecration  was  denied  by  the  Catholics  at  that 
time,  and  has  ever  since  been  so  denied,  and  treated  as  null 
and  void.  Hence,  when  an  Anglican  or  Protestant  Episco- 
pal clergyman  becomes  a  Catholic,  he  assumes  the  state  of  a 
layman,  and  cannot  officiate  at  the  altar  until  duly  ordained. 
I  cannot  here  enter  into  the  merits  of  this  question,  since  it 
would  involve  me  to  do  it  ju.sticc,  in  a  lengthy  theological  and 
historical  discussion.*  In  a  future  letter  I  may  find  it  con- 
venient to  set  forth  the  grounds  upon  which  the  Catholic 
Church  ignores  yoiu"  orders.  For  the  present  I  must  content 
myself  with  calling  your  attention  to  the  fact,  that  your 
"Apostolic  Succession"  is  thus  treated  as  a  mere  fiction. 
This  fact  alone,  ought  to  have  much  weight  with  all  sincere 
persons.  For,  why  does  the  Catholic  Church  deny  your 
orders?  It  is  not  in  a  mere  spirit  of  opposition.  It  is  not 
for  the  purpose  of  denying  your  claims  to  be  a  Church.  She 
considers  you  in  a  state  of  schism,  upon  other  and  distinct 
grounds,  and  would  so  consider  j'ou  even  if  your  orders  were 
unquestionable,  for  she  so  considers  the  Bussian  or  Greek 
Church,  and  some  other  ancient  sects,  whose  orders  she  ad- 
mits to  be  genuine.  She  denies  your  orders  simply  because 
there  are,  to  say  the  least,  grave  and  insuperable  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  their  genuineness.  And  it  is  worthy  of  your  con- 
sideration, that  she  is  not  alone  in  denying  them.  The  Greek 
Church  also  denies  them.  Here,  then,  are  facts,  which  are 
in  themselves  sufficient  to  throw  such  doubt  upon  your  orders, 
that  no  one  can  fairly  rest  satisfied  with  them,  without  even 
looking  into  the  merits  of  the  question.  You  admit  the 
validity  of  the  Greek  orders,  and  the  Catholic  orders.  l"ou 
admit  that  the  Greek  Church  is  a  true  Church .    Y'^ou  admit  that 


*If  the  reader  should  desire  to  investigate  this  question,  I  beg  to  re- 
fer him  to  an  able  work  by  the  present  distinguished  Archbishop  of 
St.  Louis,  entitled  ''Anglican  Ordinations  Examined.' 

17* 


192  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  Catholic  Chm-ch  is  a  true  Church.  Yet  both  of  these 
Chui'ches,  although  diifering  from  each  other  in  some  respects, 
agree  in  denying  the  validity  of  your  orders.  Is  not  this  a  most 
significant  fact — one  well  calculated  to  awaken  serious  suspi- 
cion and  doubt  as  to  the  point  ?  And  surely,  a  bare  suspicion 
or  doubt  in  a  matter  of  this  sort — a  matter  involving  the  very 
being  of  yom-  Church,  and  the  validity  of  your  Sacraments 
and  ministrations — ought  to  be  sufficient  to  determine  your 
conduct.  The  case  stands  thus.  The  universal  Church,  ac- 
cording to  your  theory,  is  composed  of  several  branches,  viz  : 
the  Greek  Church,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  your 
own  Church.*  Here  are  three  parties,  or  claimants,  to  the 
inheritance  of  the  "Apostolic  Succession."  Your  Church 
and  the  Greek  Church  both  admit  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  has  it.  Thus,  the  other  two  parties  support  her 
claims;  and  "the  testimony  of  two  witnesses  is  true,"  says 
the  Holy  Gospel.  But  who  supports  your  claims?  No  one. 
The  other  two  branches  disown  you,  and  repudiate  your  or- 
ders. Thus,  the  only  witnesses  in  the  case  testify  against 
you.  All,  then,  that  we  have,  is  your  own  assertion,  which 
cannot  be  taken,  because  it  is  intei'ested,  and  because  it  is 
contradicted  by  more  competent  witnesses.  The  Anglican 
Church  cannot  help  you  out  of  this  difficulty.  She  is  involv- 
ed in  the  same  predicament.  You  received  your  orders  from 
her,  and  you  and  she  are  one  in  this  question. 

I  trust  I  have  made  this  matter  sufficiently  plain  for  the 
comprehension  of  every  one.  If  not,  it  may  be  more  clearly 
set  forth  by  a  familiar  illustration.     We  will  su23pose  there 

*Your  theory  of  the  Church  may  include  other  branches  besides 
these.  But,  they  are  small  and  insignificant  sects,  so  remote,  and  so 
uninformed  as  to  your  Church  history,  as  to  be  utterly  incompetent  to 
form  an  opinion  upon  the  matter.  Those  which  I  have  named  in  the 
text,  are  the  three  grand  divisions  of  j-our  Church  family. 

The  Greek  Church,  every  year,  solemnly  anathematises  the  "religion 
of  the  Reformation, ' '  and  declares  every  member  of  the  Anglican  Church 
to  be  a  "member  of  Satan  !"  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  ori- 
ental sects,  also,  such  as  the  Armenians,  Jacobites,  &c.,  would  express 
the  same  opinion  if  made  acquainted  with  the  subject,  since  they  hold 
the  seven  Sacraments  Avith  the  Greeks  and  Roman  Catholics. 

At  a  meeting  of  your  "Board  of  Missions"  in  Baltimore,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Andrews  stated  that  in  your  Mission  Schools  in  Greece,  the  Greek 
Catechism  was  used,  which  inculcated  doctrines  almost  identical  with 
tlie  Roman  Catholic  faith.  He  also  read  a  portion  of  the  Greek  litur- 
gy, showing  that  prayers  were  made  to  the  Virgin  Mary.  (See  Balti- 
more Sun,  Oct.  15th,  "l858.) 


LETTER     VI.  19? 

are  three  parties  claiming  to  be  branches  of  one  nolile  f\in)ily 
— A,  B,  &  C.  One  of  these  parties,  A,  admits  the  claims 
of  13  and  C  ;  but  both  B  and  (3,  although  not  on  very  good 
terms  with  each  other,  stoutly  deny  the  claims  of  A ;  would 
not  that  denial  be  a  strong  reason  for  doubting  the  claims  of 
A '?  This  is  a  fair  representation  of  the  t|uestion  concerning 
the  validity  of  Anglican  orders. 

But  even  if  your  Church  possessed  valid  orders,  she  would 
not  be  an  Apostolic  Chiu'ch.  Something  more  is  re(piisite. 
As  I  have  already  shewn,  an  Apostolic  Church  must  have 
also.  Apostolic  mission  and  jurisdiction.  A  bishop  must  not 
only  be  validly  ordained  or  consecrated — he  must  also  be  ap- 
pointed by  Apostolic  authority,  to  a  particular  diocese.  The 
Donatist  bishops  had  genuine  orders  ;  and  yet  they  were  mere 
usurpers  and  schismatics.  They  lacked  Apostolic  mission 
and  jurisdiction.  Glance  for  a  moment  at  the  history  of  your 
bishops,  and  you  will  perceive  that  they  are  equally  destitute 
of  that  necessary  authority.  You  derive  your  orders  fi-om 
Parker,  the  first  Protestant  Archbishop  of  Canterbur}-.  But 
who  appointed  Parker  to  that  ancient  see  ?  Queen  Elizabeth. 
Had  Queen  Elizabeth  Apostolic  authority  to  commission 
bishops  and  give  them  jurisdiction  over  this  or  that  partion  of 
the  Church  of  God  ?  Unquestionably  not.  Consequently, 
as  she  could  not  confer  what  she  did  not  possess,  she  did  not 
confer  such  authority  upon  l*arker.  The  same  is  true  of 
Parker — he  could  not,  and  did  not,  confer  on  his  successor  what 
he  himself  did  not  possess — consequently,  the  Anglican  succes- 
sion is  not  an  Apostolic  succession,  but  a  mere  Elizabethan 
succession.  In  order  to  perceive  the  full  force  of  this  argu- 
ment, you  must  take  a  glance  at  the  history  and  constitution 
of  the  Church  in  England,  prior  to  the  great  ecclesiastical 
rebellion  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  See  of  Canterbury, 
together  with  the  ancient  English  Church,  was  founded  by 
St.  Augustine,  who  was  sent  to  Britain  as  a  missionary,  by 
Pope  Gi'egory  the  Great,  A.  D.  59G.  It  is  true,  Christianity 
had  been  established  in  the  island  several  centuries  before 
that  date.  But  by  the  invasion  of  the  Saxons,  from  the  con- 
tinent, in  the  fifth  century,  the  Christians  were  driven  to  the 
mountains  of  Wales  on  the  Western  coast,  and  nearly  exter- 
minated,— so  that  almost  the  entire  Island  had  again  become 
pagan.  Hence  the  mission  of  St.  Augustine,  who  was  duly 
commissioned  by  the  pope  to  establish  diocesses,  and  especially 
the  primatial  See  of  Canterbury.    Here  was  the  beginning  of 


194  LETTEKS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  Englisli  Church, — that  Church  which  existed  for  nearly 
a  thousand  years  ;  that  is,  from  the  sixth  to  the  sixteenth 
century,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope.  The  author- 
ity of  the  Pope  over  Britain,  was  of  a  two-fold  nature^ 
partly  Papal  and  partly  patriarchal.  Of  his  authority  as 
Pope,  I  shall  not  now  speak.  But  as  Patriarch  of  the 
West,  according  to  the  ancient  organization  of  the  Church, 
his  jurisdiction  extended  to  the  British  Isles.  From  him, 
Augustine  derived  his  jurisdiction,  which  was  plainly  Apos- 
tolic. After  the  death  of  Augustine,  the  next  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  also  received  his  jurisdiction  from  the  Pope, 
and  so  on  with  all  his  successors,  down  to  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. We  may  learn  how  essentially  important  this  autho- 
rity from  the  Pope  had  been  considered,  from  the  fact  related 
in  a  previous  letter,  that  even  Cranmer,  with  a  powerful  and 
schismatic  monarch  to  back  him,  did  not  dare  to  assume  the 
prerogatives  of  that  eminent  See,  without  the  authority  of  the 
Pope,  to  whom  he  falsely  swore  allegiance.  But  in  the  case 
of  Parker,  this  authority  was  neither  sought  nor  obtained. 
And  he  was  the  first  Archbishop  of  that  See,  who  ever  under- 
took to  exercise  its  prerogatives  without  the  Apostolic  com- 
mission of  the  Pope.  His  commission  came  from  Elizabeth 
and  Elizabeth  only.  And  his  case  was  rendered  yet  worse, 
by  the  fact,  that  of  the  four  bishops  who  are  said  to  have 
consecrated  him,  not  one  had  any  diocesan  jurisdiction  what- 
ever. They  were  men  who  had  been  deposed  fi-om  their  office 
on  account  of  their  errors  or  canonical  offences.  Thus  it  will 
be  seen  that  Parker's  consecration  had  not  even  the  concur- 
rence of  the  bishops  of  the  province,  who  had  been  driven 
from  then*  sees  by  Elizabeth,  as  we  have  seen.  This  fact 
alone,  shows  that  the  Anglican  succession,  v/hatever  may 
be  its  merits  in  other  respects,  originated  in  schism.  The 
fourth  canon  of  the  General  Council  of  Nice,  expressly  de- 
clares, ' '  It  is  most  proper  that  a  bishop  should  be  consti- 
tuted by  all  the  bishops  of  the  province."  The  Council  that 
enacted  this  law,  was  the  same  Council  that  drew  up  the 
Nicene  Creed,  and  represented  that  "primitive  Church" 
which  certain  Episcopalians  profess  to  follow.  When  a  cler- 
gyman violates  a  canon  of  your  own  Church,  he  is  treated  as 
a  schismatic,  and  forthwith  deposed  from  his  order.  Yet 
this  canon,  passed  by  the  first  General  Council  of  the  Chris- 
tian world,  was  broken  by  the  men,  who,  obej'ing  the  behests 
of  a  female  tyrant,  undertook  to  make  a  new  primate  for  the 


I.  E  T  T  E  U     VI.  195 

venerable  See  of  Canterbm-y.  Their  conduct  was  palpably  an 
act  of  schism,  leaving  out  of  view  the  authority  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  as  Pope  and  Patriarch  of  the  West.  A  bishop- 
elect  of  your  Church  cannot  be  consecrated  without  the  con- 
currence of  at  least  a  majority  of  3-oar  bishops.  Yet  Parker 
was  consecrated  without  the  concurrence  of  more  than  one  out 
of  twelve  or  fifteen  bishops  of  the  English  Sees,  and  in  con- 
travention of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  law  above  quoted ! 
Yom"  succession,  therefore,  if  you  have  any,  originated  in 
schism,  and  consequently  involves  all  who  adhere  to  it,  in  the 
same  sin.  And  if  your  succession  is  schismatical,  it  cannot 
be  "Apostolical."  But  as  I  was  arguing,  if  it  be  a  succes- 
sion at  all,  it  is  a  succession  without  jurisdiction.  The  men 
who  undertook  to  consecrate  Parker,  supposing  they  had  been 
validly  consecrated  themselves,  were  without  dioceses.  And 
if  an  ordinary  bishop  with  a  diocese,  cannot  give  jurisdiction 
to  another  person  over  another  diocese,  (for  how  can  he  give 
jurisdiction  over  a  diocess  which  is  not  under  his  control. 
Certainly  men  who  had  not  even  dioceses  of  their  own, 
could  iiot  have  given  jurisdiction  to  another,  and  much  less 
to  a  primate,  who  was  to  have  a  general  jurisdiction  over  the 
whole  province.  Parker  was,  therefore,  plainly  without 
jurisdiction,  and  as  Anglican  bishops  of  the  present  day,  de- 
rive all  the  authority  they  possess  from  him,  they  are  equally 
without  jm-isdiction.  Your  bishops,  also,  in  this  country, 
must  be  in  the  same  predicament.  After  the  Revolution, 
when  you  needed  a  bishop,  Dr.  AVhite  went  over  to  England, 
and  after  much  difficulty,  was  there  consecrated  by  Anglican 
bishops.  But  as  these  bishops  had  no  jurisdiction  even  in 
England,  it  is  manifest  that  they  could  not  have  ^ivcn  Dr. 
White  jurisdiction  in  this  "Western  world,  over  which  they 
had  no  authorit}'.  From  all  this,  it  clearly  follows  that  your 
Church  is  destitute  of  both  mission  and  jurisdiction  ;  and, 
consequently,  is  not  Apostolic. 

A.  B. 


LETTER  VII. 

The  Anglican  Church  ecj[ually  destitute  of  the  four  marks  of  the  Creed. 
— That  Church  the  Creature  and  Slave  of  the  State. — These  marks 
all  found  in  the  Communion  -with  the  Pope  as  its  head. — Anglican- 
ism and  Catholicity  compared. — Testimony  of  Protestants  as  to  the 
condition  of  England. — Spiritual  books  written  by  Catholics  ac- 
knowledged to  be  superior. — Catholics  in  communion  with  Chris- 
tians of  other  countries. — Protestant  Episcopalians  isolated  and  at 
war  with  all  other  ecclesiastical  bodies.  The  language  of  the  An- 
cient Fathers  can  now  be  adopted  only  by  those  in  communion  with 
the  Pope. — All  bound  to  submit  to  the  true  Church. — No  other 
way  of  Salvation. — The  doctrine  of  the  Creed  concerning  Baptism. 
— Denied  by  Episcopalians. 

My  Dear  Friend  : 

I  have  sliown,  in  my  previous  letter,  that  your  Church  is 
destitute  of  all  the  four  marks  of  the  Church.  The  want  of 
one  single  mark  would  be  sufficient  to  disprove  her  claims ; 
but  the  want  of  all  fovu-  amounts  to  an  infallible  demonstra- 
tion that  she  is  not  the  Church  of  the  Creed — not  the  One, 
Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  in  which  you  are  bound 
to  believe.  Where,  then,  is  that  Church  ?  Is  it  the  Angli- 
can Church?  After  all  that  I  have  said,  it  can  scarcely  be 
necessary  for  me  to  enter  upon  a  long  argument  to  show  that 
she  is  not  it.  Indeed,  nearly  all  the  arguments  employed  in 
your  case,  serve  equally  to  refute  her  claims,  as  I  might 
show  you  in  a  few  words.  In  some  of  them,  particularly  as 
to  the  last  point  discussed — the  Apostolic  mark — she  has  been 
expressly  included.  In  regard  to  unity,  she  is,  if  possible, 
still  more  deficient  than  your  own  Church.  The  doctrinal 
dissensions,  divisions  and  contradictions  of  her  bishops  and 
clergy,  are  more  palpable  and  more  notorious.*     Her  claims 

*  It  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  adduce  proofs  of  this ;  but  I  will 
add  here  the  single  testimony  of  a  clergyman  of  that  Church — "It  is 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  the  fundamental  and  clearly  defined 
doctrines  of  the  Church,  that  numbers  who  minister  at  her  altars  are 
violently  and  schismatically  opposed.  This  is  the  festering  canker 
which  is  gnawing  at  the  Church's  vitals — this  is  the  damning  plague- 
spot  which  scares  away  from  her,  thoughtful  men  who  would  cheer- 
fully shed  their  blood  in  her  cause  if  she  were  only  true  to  herself. 

(196) 


LETTKU     VII.  107 

to  be  a  true  Church,  arc  still  further  nullified  by  her  com- 
plete subjection  to  the  State.  She  is  a  mere  national  estab- 
lishment. She  is  a  mere  creatui'e,  a  mere  appendage  of  the 
civil  government.  In  the  course  of  these  letters  I  have 
shown  you  that  she  was  created  and  established  by  acts  of 
Parliament,  and  received  and  acknowledged  the  king  as  her 
supreme  head  on  earth,  in  matters  ecclesiastical  as  well  as 
temporal.  Such  as  she  was  at  the  beginning,  such  she  is 
now.  She  is  the  abject  slave  of  the  State.  This  language 
may  appear  very  strong  to  those  who  arc  not  familiar  with 
the  subject ;  but  it  is  not  stronger  than  the  case  actually  war- 
rants. As  Parliament  gave  her  existence,  so  Parliament  pre- 
serves her  and  governs  her.  She  cannot  act,  she  cannot 
move  without  the  consent  of  Parliament.  She  cannot  alter 
or  amend  any  of  her  canons,  nor  can  she  enact  a  new  one, 
no  matter  how  necessary  such  a  change  may  be  to  her  well- 
being  or  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  Her  convocation  possesses 
no  power  of  action — it  is  a  mere  name — stat  nominis  vmhra. 
It  meets  only  to  adjourn.  It  is  allowed  no  legislative  action. 
Its  absolute  master,  the  State,  has  completely  muzzled  it.  It 
is  a  dmnb  dog  that  cannot  bark.  It  has  been  muzzled  for 
more  than  a  century.  Parliament  is  the  only  legislature 
of  the  Anglican  Church ;  and  Parliament  is  made  up  of 
Christians,  Jews  and  Infidels.  If  one  of  the  Episcopal  sees 
becomes  vacant,  it  cannot  be  filled  until  her  royal  mistress, 
the  Queen,  is  jjleased  to  issue  a  permit  or  order  to  the  dean 
and  chapter  for  that  purpose,  accompanying  the  conge  with 
the  name  of  the  individual  whom  she  wishes  elected ;  and 
him,  and  no  one  else,  they  are  required  to  elect.  Thus,  the 
Chiu'ch  cannot  even  choose  or  appoint  her  own  bishops  ! 
The  king  or  queen,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  her  supreme  head 
on  earth. 


But  she  is  not  true  to  herself.  Heresy  of  the  most  fearful  kind  is 
openly  taught  in  our  pulpits,  and  this  unrebuked  byauthoritv.''  {Ad- 
dress to  the  congregation  of  St.  Martin's,  Liverpool.  By  Rev.  Cecil 
Wray,  A.M.) 

A  fresh  proof  of  the  doctrinal  dissension  even  among  the  prelates  of 
Anglicanism,  has  recently  occurred.  The  Rev.  Mr.  West,  of  London, 
induced  a  sick  woman  to  make  her  confession  to  him.  For  this  act 
the  Bishop  of  London  deprived  him  of  his  curacy.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Bishop  of  0-xford  published  a  letter  justifying  the  curate  and 
defending  the  practice  of  confession.  (See  Xew  York  Churchman, 
Sep.  16.  1863.) 


198  LETTEUS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Many  persons  sixppose  tliis  headship  is  only  iu  temporal 
matters;  but  that  opinion  is  entirely  erroneous,  as  I  will 
show  by  an  appeal  to  unquestionable  authorities — to  the 
"  Constitution  and  Canons"  of  that  Church.  By  the  express 
permission  of  King  James,  the  convocation  was  allowed  to 
compose  a  body  of  laws  or  canons  for  the  government  o^f  the 
Church.  After  their  work  was  performed,  they  submit'ted  it 
as  dutiful  subjects,  to  their  royal  master,  whereupon  he  was 
graciously  pleased  to  give  these  canons  his  sanction  and  au- 
thority. All  these  facts  are  duly  set  forth  in  the  preface  to 
the  "  Constitution  and  Canons,"  as  published  at  this  day,  be- 
ginning with  the  words,  "James,  by  the  grace  of  God, 
king,  &c."  The  language  employed  by  the  king  in  this  pre- 
face, shows  at  once  the  nature  and  extent  of  his  headship 
over  the  Church.  Thus,  in  declaring  that  he  had  authorized 
the  archbishop  and  bishops  in  convocation  to  compose  these 
canons,  he  asserts  that  he  had  done  so,  "by  virtue  of  our 
prerogative  royal  and  supreme  autlioritij  in  cemses  eccJesias- 
ticcd."  The  king,  afterwards,  repeats  this  same  expression 
in  declaring  that  the  said  canons  had  received  his  royal  sanc- 
tion. If  we  look  into  these  canons,  wc  shall  find  further 
evidence  of  the  sovereign's  supreme  authority  over  the 
Church.  The  first  canon  affords  sufficient  proof  in  its  very 
title,  which  is  as  follows:  "  The  king's  supremacy  over  the 
Church  of  England  in  causes  ecclesiastical  to  be  maintain- 
ed." The  canon  proceeds  to  declare  that  all  the  bishops  and 
clergy  shall  observe  all  the  laws  ' '  made  for  restoring  to  the 
crown  of  this  kingdom,  the  ancient  jurisdiction  over  the 
State  ecclesiastical."  Observe  the  name  here  given  to  the 
Church — it  is  called  the  "  State  ecclesiastical."  A  very  ap- 
propriate name  :  for  the  Anglican  Church  is  only  a  ' '  State" 
institution — or  rather  only  one  part  of  the  State,  the  body 
politic  being  composed  of  two  parts,  the  ecclesiastical  and 
the  civil.  The  second  canon  denounces  ex-communication 
against  "  impugners  of  the  king's  supremacy"  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal affairs.  The  55th  canon  requires  all  the  clergy  to  offer 
up  a  prayer  before  every  sermon,  for  "our  sovereign  lord, 
James,  king  of  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  defender  of 
the  faith,  and  supreme  governor  in  these,  his  realms,  and  all 
other,  his  dominions  and  countries,  over  all  persons,  in  all 
causes,  as  well  ccclesiasticcd  as  temporal."  Prefixed  to  the 
Thirty-Nine  Articles  in  the  Enghsh  Prayer-Book,  there  is  a 
sort  of  royal  proclamation,  entitled  :   "  His  Majesty's  Decla- 


LETTER     VII.  190 

ration."  It  commences  in  these  words:  "being  by  God's 
ordinance,  according  to  our  just  title,  '  defender  of  the  faith,' 
and  supreme  governor  of  the  Church  within  tliesc  our  domin- 
ions, &c."  Now,  these  citations  show  clearly  that  the  sov- 
ereign is  supreme  head  over  the  Church,  over  "  ecclesiastical 
causes,"  and  not  merely  temporal.  That  this  supremacy  of 
the  sovereign  over  the  Church  is  not  a  mere  nominal  thing, 
is  shewn  not  only  by  the  fact  that  the  sovereign  always  ap- 
points the  new  bishops,  (against  the  Nicene  canon)  but  by 
well  known  tacts  in  history.  Thus,  when  Abbot,  Archbish- 
op of  Canterbury,  killed  a  man  accidentally,  and  so  became 
canonically  disabled,  the  canonical  unpediment  was  dispensed 
with  by  the  royal  authority  of  James  I.  This  same  prelate 
was  afterwards  suspended  by  Charles  I.  This  monarch  also 
ratified  anew  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  and  commanded  them 
to  be  understood  in  a  certain  sense,  and  on  a  subseijuent 
occasion  he  consented  to  suspend  Episcopacy  for  three  years, 
and  to  establish  Presbyterianism.  Charles  II.  allowed  the 
sign  of  the  cross  to  be  dispensed  with  in  Baptism,  and  dispens- 
ed with  the  oath  of  canonical  obedience  at  ordinations. 
William  III.  deprived  several  bishops  of  their  sees,  and  is- 
sued certain  injunctions  to  the  archbishops — ("  you  and  other 
our  bishops"  he  calls  them)  "  by  virtue  of  our  royal  and  .su- 
preme authority."  Queen  Anne,  1707,  wi'ote  to  the  primate 
in  the  same  style,  saying  among  other  things,  "  We  declared 
our  resolution  to  maintain  our  supremacy,  and  the  due  subor- 
dination of  Presbyters  to  Bishops  as  fundamental  parts  of  the 
constitution  of  the  Chm-ch  of  England."  In  1714,  George 
I.  is.sued  "directions  to  our  archbishops  and  bishops,  for  the 
preserving  of  unity  in  the  Church,  the  purity  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  concerning  the  holy  Trinity,  &c."*  Here,  then, 
we  find  the  sovereign  exercising  over  that  Church,  a  power 
more  despotic  and  more  unlimited,  than  that  of  Patriarch 
or  Pope.  And  yet,  some  of  your  writers  declaim  against 
submission  to  the  Pope  as  a  "degrading  vassalage  I"  It  is, 
also,  common  to  inveigh  against  the  Papacy  as  a  "politico- 
religious"  institution.  But  surely,  this  idea  is  much  more 
fully  realized  in  Anglicanism,  which  is  so  entirely  under  the 

•■■For  a  more  full  account  of  these  acts,  and  others  of  the  same  pur- 
port, see  "Notes  on  the  Nature  and  Extent  of  the  Royal  Supremacy  in 
the  Anglican  Church,  "  by  David  Lewis,  A.  M.,  published  in  London 
Jn  1847,  citing  Wilkins  and  Collier  as  authorities. 

18 


200  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

control  of  the  State.  It  is  not,  then,  the  Convocation;  it  is 
not  the  bishops ;  it  is  not  even  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury that  is  the  supreme  head  of  the  Anghcan  Church :  it  is 
at  this  time  Queen  Victoria,  and  no  one  else.  Now,  I  say- 
that  this  identification  with  the  State — this  complete  subjec- 
tion to  the  civil  power,  this  slavish  and  abject  submission  to 
the  government  of  a  mere  laic,  completely  destroys  the  claun 
of  that  institution  to  be  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church, 
or  any  part  of  it.  I  may  also  observe,  that  this  feature  in 
that  system  renders  it  utterly  impossible  for  your  Church,  or 
any  other  Church,  to  be  "one"  with  it,  as  is  sometimes  al- 
leged. It  is  a  mere  national  or  State  Church,  or  rather  in- 
stitution, and  is  just  as  separate  from  all  other  Churches,  as 
is  the  English  civil  government  from  all  other  civil  govern- 
ments. 

I  have  now  shown,  I  think,  that  the  One,  Holy,  Catholic 
and  Apostolic  Church  of  the  Creed,  cannot  be  found  in  your 
Church,  nor  in  the  Anglican  establishment.  Where  then  is 
it  to  be  found  ?  Will  you  pretend  to  find  it  in  an  imaginary 
union  of  all  the  Churches  of  the  world — that  omnimn-gath- 
erum  and  ecclesiastical  hodge-podge,  consisting  of  your 
Church,  and  the  Anglican  Church,  and  the  Greek  and  the 
Roman,  &c.  ?  Surely,  I  have  said  enough  already  to  show 
the  absurdity  of  such  a  theory.  In  the  very  last  point  dis- 
cussed, it  has  been  made  clear  that  Anglicanism  cannot  be 
one  with  any  other  Church  from  its  subjection  to  civil  and 
lay  power.  Besides,  the  doctrinal  differences  and  contradic- 
tions, not  only  between  it  and  you,  but  between  you,  it  and 
all  the  other  so-called  "  branches,"  show  that  they  cannot  be 
one.  If  taken  all  together  they  may  be  called  universal, 
yet  they  are  neither  One,  nor  Holy,  nor  Apostolic,  unless 
we  can  call  things  which  are  isolated,  independent,  contra- 
dictory and  false.  One,  Holy  and  Apostolic. 

There  are  many  in  your  Church  who  hold  another  theory 
concerning  the  Church  ;  the  theory  of  an  invisihle  Church. 
This  theory  has  been  invented  to  escape  the  difficulties  of  the 
Protestant  position.  I  know  you  do  not  hold  this  theory, 
but  it  may  be  well  to  give  it  a  brief  notice,  especially  as  it  is 
possible,  that  driven  from  every  other  refuge,  you  may 
thoughtlessly  take  shelter  here.  According  to  this  theory, 
it  is  held  that,  ' '  although  the  Church  of  Rome  was  corrupt 
during  the  long  ages  of  her  general  prevalence  over  Chris- 
tendom, yet  there  were  many  pious  and  holy  persons  within 


LETTER     VII.  201 

her  fold  who  did  not  partake  of  her  errors,  and  who  consti- 
tuted the  true  Church  of  God."  Now,  this  theory,  however 
plausible  it  may  seem  to  certain  minds,  is  a  mere  gratuitous 
assumption,  and  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  nature  of 
the  Church.  In'  the  first  place,  the  assertion  that  there  were 
many  in  the  Church  who  did  not  receive  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  and  conform  to  her  practices,  is  not  true.  Who 
and  where  were  these  persons  ?  They  did  not  exist,  and 
could  not  have  existed.  Had  any  such  persons  risen  up  in 
the  Chui'ch,  they  would  not  have  been  tolerated.  You  will 
not  assert  that  8t.  Bernard,  Thomas  a'Kempis,  and  others, 
whose  piety  is  extolled  by  Protestant  writers  and  historians, 
belonged  to  that  class,  for  it  is  too  well  known  that  they  were 
zealous  advocates  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Cathohc 
Church.  But,  perhaps,  it  will  be  said  that  these  spiritual 
members  were  unknown,  and  led  their  pious  life  in  secret.  lu 
this  sense  the  assumption  becomes  doubly  absurd.  IIow  can 
anything  be  asserted  of  persons  who  were  unknown  ?  Such 
persons  must,  indeed,  have  been  inn'sihle,  for  they  were 
pui'cly  imaginary,  and  so,  also,  must  have  been  the  Church 
which  they  composed. 

But  this  theory  is  not  only  founded  upon  a  baseless  and 
preposterous  assumption,  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
true  idea  of  the  Church.  The  Church  of  God,  as  presented 
to  us  in  the  Holy  Scriptm-es,  is  a  visible  body.  It  is  a  king- 
dom established  among  men  ;  it  is  a  city  set  upon  a  hill.  It 
has  not  only  private  members,  but  also  officers  and  ministers, 
it  has,  too,  rules  of  discipline  to  be  enforced,  and  Sacraments 
to  be  administered.  These  officers  and  ministers  are  em- 
powered to  teach  and  to  govern.  Hence,  we  read  in  the 
gospel :  J/ he  icill  not  hear  tJie  Church  let  him  he  as  a  heathen; 
and  again :  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  tchafsoever  1 
have  commanded  you  ;  and  St.  Paul  says :  Obeg  them  that 
have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves,  for  they  v:atc7i 
for  your  souls.  Now,  the  theory  of  an  invisible  Church 
makes  its  members  independent  of  the  ministry  and  Sacra- 
ments, for  these  they  could  not  have,  except  in  the  visible 
Church  ;  and  it  is  manifest,  that  a  Church  without  the  min- 
istry and  Sacraments,  is  not  the  Church  of  the  Scriptures, 
not  the  Church  instituted  by  our  Divine  lledeemer.  This 
simple  fact  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  upset  the  theory  at  once, 
with  every  reflecting  mind.  It  is  si^cient  to  ask — did  the 
persons  composing  this  ' '  invisible  Church"  receive  the  Sac- 


202    -  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

raments?  If  it  be  answered  that  they  did,  then  I  reply, 
they  must  have  been  members  of  the  visible  Church,  and 
therefore  must  have  conformed  to  its  faith  and  practice.  But 
if  it  be  answered,  that  they  did  not  receive  the  Sacraments, 
then  I  reply  that  they  were  not  Christians,  and,  consequent- 
ly, that  the  Church  which- they  constituted  was  not  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  So,  by  either  supposition,  the  theory  is  com- 
pletely overthrown.  Hence,  they  who  are  determined  to 
hold  it,  must,  if  consistent,  consort  with  the  Quakers,  who 
dispense  with  the  ministry  and  Sacraments,  and  profess  to 
follow  only  the  interior  light  of  the  Spirit. 

Having  shown  the  untenableness  of  the  theory  of  an  in- 
visible Church,  let  us  return  to  the  subject  of  the  four  marks 
of  the  Church.  These  marks  cannot  be  found  in  Anglican- 
ism, nor  in  your  own  denomination. 

Is  there,  then,  no  communion  answering  to  the  Church  of 
the  Creed  ?  I  need  not  tell  you  there  is  such  a  communion 
— a  communion  possessing  all  these  four  attributes  or  marks 
complete  and  entire.  I  need  not  point  her  out  to  you.  She 
is  like  a  city  set  on  a  hill  that  cannot  be  hid.  Open  your 
eyes,  my  friend,  and  behold  her.  Raise  your  head  above 
that  narrow  wall  by  which  your  vision  is  circumscribed,  and 
look  out  upon  God's  broad  creation,  and  behold  and  recog- 
nize that  vast  and  glorious  communion  having  her  centre  at 
Rome,  and  her  circumference  at  the  extremities  of  the  globe. 
Try  her  by  your  Creed,  and  see  if  every  mark  of  the  true 
Church  is  not  plainly  impressed  upon  her  features.  This 
communion  is  strictly  and  emphatically  One.  Although  em- 
bracing in  her  fold,  men  of  every  nation  and  tribe,  yet  her 
teaching  is  one  and  the  same  everywhere.  Her  archbishops, 
bishops,  priests,  and  lay  members,  whether  found  in  Italy, 
Europe  or  Asia,  Africa  or  America,  all  teach  and  hold  one 
and  the  same  doctrine.  Ask  any  of  them  what  the  Church 
teaches  upon  any  point  of  faith,  and  all  will  give  the  very 
same  answer.  Here  is  a  oneness  of  a  most  impressive  char- 
acter ;  it  is,  in  fact,  divine  and  supernatural.  Your  Church 
cannot  maintain  unity  of  doctrine  among  a  mere  handful  of 
people  of  the  same  nation  :  but  that  communion  maintains  it 
among  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions,  scattered  over  all  the 
nations  and  countries  of  the  habitable  earth.  Is  not  this  a 
wonderful  power,  and  just  what  you  would  expect  in  a  Church 
divinely  founded  and  ordered  ?  This  communion  is  also  one 
in  government,  as  you  well  know.     She  is  one  corporate 


LETTKR    vrr.  1203 

body,  with  one  visible  heail — one  centre  of  authority  to  which 
all  the  member?  submit  and  adhere.  8ho  is  one  as  a  nation, 
or  kingdom,  or  empire  is  one.  She  thus  fulfils  the  Scriptu- 
ral idea  of  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven"  which  Daniel  foresaw 
in  prophetic  vision,  and  which  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God  es- 
tablished when  on  earth,  the  keys  of  which  he  bestowed  on 
his  first  Vicar,  St.  Peter,  as  he  promised  when  lie  said — 
"  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
and  which  St.  Peter  bequeathed  to  his  successors  in  the 
Roman  See.  Here  you  behold  a  oneness  answering  to  that 
which  our  Divine  Saviour  prayed  for,  when  He  said,  "I  pray 
for  all  that  shall  believe  in  Me,  that  they  may  he  One :  as 
Thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  Thee :  that  the  world  may  know 
that  Thou  hast  sent  Me."  It  is  a  compact,  visible  unity, 
such  as  the  world  without  may  recognize  and  acknowledge. 
Such  a  unity  as  this  does  not  subsist,  and  cannot  subsist  be- 
tween independent  opposing  "  branches."  The  unity  of  that 
communion  is  so  manifest  and  obvious — unity  of  doctrine 
and  of  government — that  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  add  any 
thing  more,  in  order  to  show  that  it  possesses  the  first  mark 
of  the  Church  of  the  Creed. 

You  will  find  also,  in  that  communion  the  second  mark — 
sanctity.  She  is  "  Holy."  I  have  shewn  you  in  a  previous 
letter,  that  the  Church  is  called  holy,  because  her  teaching  is 
holy,  and  because  her  members  are  called  to  a  holy  state,  and 
rendered  holy  by  her  ministrations.  That  the  term  holy,  in 
this  sense,  applies  to  that  communion,  it  is  easy  to  show. 
Examine  her  doctrines  and  precepts  one  by  one,  and  you  will 
find  that  they  are  all  holy.  You  will  find  that  these  doctrines 
are  not  discordant,  and  therefore  false  and  unholy ;  but  har- 
monious and  consistent,  constituting  a  homogeneous  system  of 
moral  and  dogmatic  theology.  You  will  find  also,  that  these 
doctrines  and  precepts  are  not  only  pure  and  holy  per  se,  but 
admirably  calculated  to  promote  holiness  in  her  children, 
much  more  so  than  the  doctrines  of  your  Protestant  Church. 
Take  the  subject  of  Justification.  Your  Church  teaches  that 
men  are  justified  by  "  faith  only."  Thus,  the  11th  article 
Bays:  "That  we  arc  justified  hy  faith  only,  is  a  wholesome 
doctrine."  According  to  this  doctrine,  a  man  has  no  need 
to  practice  good  works,  nor  to  abstain  firom  acts  of  injustice 
and  immorality.  It  has,  therefore,  a  tendency  to  encourage 
men  in  sin  and  iniquity.  History  furnishes  us  with  terrible 
examples  of  the  immoral  effects  of  this  doctrine,  when  fully 
18* 


204  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

carried  out,  in  some  of  tlie  early  Protestant  sects.  The' 
Catholic  doctrine  upon  this  point,  is  very  different.  While 
it  requu'es  faith  in  order  to  justification,  it  requires  also  good 
works — that  a  man  "cease  to  do  evil  and  learn  to  do  well." 
It  thus  promotes  sanctity,  in  accordance  with  the  second  note 
of  the  true  Church.  We  find  the  same  contrast  between  you 
and  us,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  "forgiveness  of  sins," 
which  is  one  of  the  articles  of  the  Creed.  How  do  your 
members  obtain  ' '  forgiveness  of  sins"  committed  after  Bap- 
tism ?  According  to  your  theory,  it  is  obtained  by  a  momen- 
tary sorrow,  and  an  act  of  faith  in  the  atonement  of  Christ. 
But  the  Catholic,  in  order  to  obtain  forgiveness,  must  not 
only  have  sorrow  and  faith,  he  must  confess  his  sin  to  God's 
minister,  and  do  penance,  that  is,  make  amends  for  that  sin 
either  public  or  private.  You  must  admit  that  these  last  re- 
quirements have  a  restraining  tendency  upon  men's  evil  pro- 
pensities, and,  consequently,  promote  virtue  and  holiness. 

You  will,  perhaps,  allege  that  this  system  is  found  to 
produce  evil  fruits  in  certain  Catholic  countries,  as  Spain  and 
Mexico.  To  this  I  answer,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  order 
that  the  Church  may  be  holy,  it  is  not  requisite  that  all  her 
members  be  holy.  I  have  shown  you,  by  the  authority  of 
your  own  bishop,  Pearson,  that  in  the  Church  of  God  the  evil 
is  mixed  with  the  good.  St.  Paul  says  :  "  All  are  not  Israel 
that  are  of  Israel."  There  were  wicked  men  in  the  primitive 
Chm*ch,  as  we  learn  from  the  New  Testament.  Our  Lord 
Himself  said  :  "  Let  both  grow  together  till  harvest."  It  is 
true  there  are  many  bad  Catholics.  But  they  are  bad,  as 
they  themselves  would  admit  were  you  to  ask  them,  not  be- 
cause they  follow  the  precepts  of  the  Church,  but  because 
they  refuse  or  neglect  to  follow  them.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
however,  that  the  accounts  generally  published  in  the  news- 
papers and  books  of  this  country,  concerning  the  morals  of 
certain  Catholic  countries,  are  very  much  exaggerated,  to  say 
the  least.  They  emanate  from  the  enemies  of  the  Catholic 
religion,  and,  therefore,  should  be  received  with  suspicion. 
But  whatever  may  be  the  amount  of  evil,  there  is  also  much 
good  to  neutralize  it — but  concerning  which,  it  does  not  suit 
the  aims  and  prejudices  of  Protestant  travellers  to  say  much. 
It  would  be  well,  however,  for  Protestants  to  look  at  the  con- 
dition of  then'  own  countries.  It  is  easy  to  prove,  not  by  the 
testimony  of  Catholics,  but  by  the  testimony  of  Protestants 
themselves,  that  England  is  far  from  being  a  model  country.. 


LETTEK     VII.  205 

In  the  fii-st  place,  it  is  cursed  with  endless  sects  and  schisms. 
Not  to  speak  here  of  the  well-known  parties  and  dissensions 
in  the  established  Church,  there  are  at  least  forty  different 
sects  in  that  land,  embracing  within  their  respective  folds 
about  one  half  of  the  population.  Every  one  knows  that  a 
large  proportion  of  Mormon  recruits  have  been  derived  from 
that  country.  In  1845  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  published  a 
Charge,  in  which  he  says  :  "  The  sin  of  schism  is  the  oppro- 
brium, and  threatens  to  be  the  downfall  of  our  country." 
Again,  he  says  :  "  Absolute  heathenism,  and  worse  than  hea- 
thenism— intense  hatred  of  the  Christian  faith — is  raging  in 
many  parts  of  England."  tSuch  is  the  testimony  of  an  An- 
glican bishop  as  to  the  condition  of  England.  The  English 
Churchman  bears  similar  testuuouy.  Thus — "The  great 
body  of  the  people  are  still  in  a  state  of  practical  atheism." 
(April  1,  1847.)  In  the  same  periodical  of  an  earlier  date,  it 
was  said:  "Not  our  foreign  possessions  alone,  but  one  half 
of  the  parishes  in  England,  are  living  in  semi-heathenism." 
(May  22,  1846.)  Dr.  Pusey  testifies  to  the  same  effect — 
"Every  where  around,"  he  saj^s,  '^'om-  crowded  cities,  our 
ports,  our  mines,  om*  manufactories,  are  one  wide  desolation, 
often,  except  in  the  suspension  of  punishment,  the  types  of 
hell."  (^Entire  Ahsol.  of  Penit.  p.  65.)  The  same  author 
elsewhere,  says  :  "  There  is  in  this  Christian  land  such  an  in- 
tensity of  sin  and  misery,  such  awful  depth  of  wickedness 
and  forgetfalness  of  God,  that  to  know  but  some  slight  por- 
tion of  it  (I  speak  in  plain  words)  makes  the  head  reel  and 
turn  dizzy,  and  the  heart  faint.  But,  that  we  do  not  yet  see 
the  unseen  fires,  one  might  of  many  places  ask — is  this  a 
Christian  land  or  is  it  hell  V"  (Sermons  Preached  at  Iffra- 
comhe,  1844,  p.  40.)  Such  was  the  dreadful  condition  of 
that  land  only  a  few  years  ago.  That  it  has  not  improved 
much  since,  may  be  learned  from  a  statement  made  by  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter  in  the  House  of  Lords,  April  23,  1858. 
From  statistics  then  before  him,  he  said  :  "  There  was  no  place 
for  the  poor  in  the  English  Churches.  The  poor  were,  there- 
fore, never  seen  in  the  Protestant  Churches.  iVmongst  the  rich 
or  wealthy  Protestants,  only  ten  persons  in  every  hundred  at- 
tended Church  in  some  Churches  ;  thirteen  in  other  districts, 
and  sixteen  was  the  highest  number  on  the  average,  which 
attended  Protestant  worship  on  Sundays,  in  the  towns  and 
cities  of  England."  To  this  fearful  statement  the  Bishop 
added — ' '  He  feared  we  were  a  people  that  worshipped  Mam- 


206  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

mon  !"     The  poor  do  not  attend  Church  at  all,  and  only  one- 
sixth  or  one-tenth  part  of  the  rich  !* 

Such,  then,  is  the  dreadful  condition  of  England  where  the 
Pi'Otestant  Episcopal  system,  with  all  the  appliances  of  wealth 
and  power,  has  been  in  operation  more  than  three  centuries. 
The  condition  of  Catholic  countries  is  not  half  so  bad  as  that, 
taking  the  accounts  of  Protestant  travellers  as  true.  There 
is  nothing,  then,  in  the  condition  of  these  Catholic  countries 
which  is  inconsistent  with  the  sanctity  of  the  Church,  for  if 
this  mark  is  not  found  there,  it  cannot  be  found  in  England. 
That  there  is  a  peculiar  power  in  the  Catholic  religion,  to 
produce  sanctity  and  its  fruits,  must  be  apparent  to  all  who 
behold  her  practical  operations.  See  her  missionaries  and 
martyrs  in  every  land,  leaving  father  and  mother,  wife  and 
lands,  and  every  earthly  comfort  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel. 
See  her  thousands  of  holy  women,  who  either  devote  them- 
selves to  works  of  mercy,  as  the  Sisters  of  Charity,  or  to  a 
secluded  life  of  jirayer  and  meditation,  as  the  Sisters  of  the 
Visitation.  See  her  hundreds  of  noble  institutions  in  almost 
every  land,  not  only  for  education,  but  as  homes  for  the  poor, 
the  orphan,  and  the  sick.  Even  thoughtful  Protestants  have 
frequently  been  struck  with  these  impressive  facts.  One  of 
them  writes  as  follows  :  ' '  Catholicity  has  made  more  eager  and 
systematic  aggression  upon  the  moral  and  physical  ills  of 
poverty — has  shown  more  sympathy  with  poverty — has  given 
away  more  and  done  more  for  charity's  sake  in  each  succes- 
sive year  of  its  existence,  than  some  wealthy  Protestant  es- 
tablishments in  each  successive  century  of  theii'S."  {London 
and  Westminster  Review,  vol.  34.)  In  regard  to  the  mis- 
sionary work,  Protestants  have  been  forced  to  acknowledge  a 
similar  contrast  between  Catholics  and  themselves.  Thus  a 
writer  from  Ceylon  in  the  Manchester  (Eng.)  Guardian  says  : 
' '  Missionary  work  here  is  at  a  very  low  ebb  indeed — little  or 

*It  is  unnecessary  to  speak  of  the  moral  condition  of  our  own  coun- 
try in  this  connection,  since  no  one  denomination  can  be  held  respon- 
sible for  it,  but  rather  Protestantism  iu  general.  But  I  would  observe 
that  the  "Protestant  Episcopal  Church"  has  never  been  distinguished 
for  special  piety  :  while  several  most  scandalous  cases  have  occurred 
among  her  bishops  and  clergy.  It  is  only  a  few  years  since  two  of  her 
most  eminent  bishops  were  suspended  for  intemperance  and  immoral- 
ity— and  others  have  been  publicly  accused  of  similar  offences.  If, 
then,  the  charges  against  the  clergy  of  Catholic  countries  were  true, 
Episcopalians  should  be  the  last  persons  to  use  it  as  an  argument 
against  the  Catholic  Church. 


L  E  T  T  E  II     V  I  r .  '207 

nothiug  doue.  In  fact,  we  have  no  missionaries  according  to 
my  notion  of  the  word — men  free  and  unfettered,  giving 
themselves  without  establishment  or  home  comforts  to  preach- 
ing the  word,  acting  as  genuine  heralds  of  the  cross;  there  are 
none  imless  lloman  Catholic  ones.  'Ti^  truly  a  sad  state  of 
things.  My  chief  tells  me  he  never  knew  a  real,  earnest, 
hona  fide  missionary,  but  a  poor  man  who  was  a  Baptist  I  Oh 
that  we  had  two  men,  young  and  active,  who,  taking  a  pit- 
tance to  live  on,  would  come  out  for,  say  ten  years,  without 
vsife  or  tie  of  any  kind,  to  itinerate  as  the  early  disciples 
did !" 

In  the  Catholic  Church  the  fruits  of  sanctity  are  also  seen 
in  a  remarkable  degree,  in  the  superior  excellence  of  the  many 
devout  and  spiritual  books  composed  by  her  children.  This 
superior  excellence  has  been  admitted  by  Protestants  them- 
selves. Thus,  King  James  I. ,  after  reading  the  '  'Introduction 
to  a  Devout  Life,"  by  St.  Francis  de  Sales,  said  to  the  An- 
glican bishops,  "  Why  cannot  any  of  you  wi'ite  with  feeling 
and  unction,  such  as  this  ?"  Those  of  your  own  writers  who 
have  made  anything  like  an  approximation  to  the  Catholic 
standard,  have  been  greatly  indebted  to  Catholic  soui'ces,  as 
Archbishop  Laud  and  Jeremy  Taylor.  Notwithstanding  the 
strong  prejudices  of  the  Protestant  mind  against  everything 
Catholic,  Protestants  of  all  denominations  have  been  forced 
to  admit  the  superior  excellence  of  some  of  om*  spiritual 
books.  Thus  Bishop  Wilson  recommended  the  use  of  the 
"Spiritual  Combat,"  written  by  a  Spanish  monk.  The  "Imi- 
tation of  Christ,"  by  Thomas  a'Kempis,  is  read  by  all  pious 
Protestants,  and  esteemed  as  next  to  the  Bible.  Even  John 
Wesley  published  an  edition  of  it  for  the  use  of  his  followers, 
but  left  out  the  Foiu-th  Book,  which  treats  of  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist— a  mutilation  which  Protestants,  generally,  have  since 
allowed  themselves.  The  writings  of  Fenelon,  too,  have  been 
highly  esteemed  and  admired  among  you  for  their  superiority 
of  tone  and  matter.  The  Anglican  Archbishop,  Leighton, 
entertained  a  most  exalted  estimate  of  the  sanctity  of  some  of 
our  members,  particularly  of  the  much-abused  monks  and 
nuns.  His  biographer  tells  us  that  among  them  he  "  recog- 
nized a  few  .specimens  of  extraordinary  growth  in  religion, 
and  thought  he  had  discovered  in  the  piety  of  some  conven- 
tual recluses  a  peculiar  and  celestial  flavor,  which  could  hard- 
ly be  met  with  elsewhere.  Of  their  sublime  devotion,  he 
often  spoke  with  an  admiration  approaching  to  rapture ;  and 


208  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

much  lie  wisliecl  that  the  sons  of  a  purer  faith  (!)  and  discip- 
line could  match  them  in  that  seraphic  strength  and  swiftness 
of  wing,  by  which  they  soared  to  the  topmost  branches  of 
divine  contemplation,  and  cropped  the  choicest  clusters  of  hea- 
venly fruitage."  (Jjei()liton^s  TTor/is,  New  York  ed.,  p.  36.) 
This  is  certainly  a  strong  admission,  and  proves  conclusively, 
that  with  us  there  is  a  pecidiar  kind  of  sanctity,  a  high  degree 
of  holiness  not  attained  elsewhere.  That  the  devotional  fer- 
vor here  acknowledged  in  the  recluses  extends  beyond  the 
cloister,  and  shows  itself  in  some  degree  among  the  ordinary 
members  of  our  Churches,  is  also  admitted  by  Protestants. 
Hear  what  a  Presbyterian  traveller  says  upon  this  point — 
' '  Catholicism  has  certainly  a  much  stronger  hold  over  the 
human  mind  than  Protestantism  ;  the  fact  is  visible  and  un- 
deniable, and  perhaps  not  unaccountable.  The  fervor  of 
devotion  among  Cathohcs,  the  absence  of  worldly  feeling  in 
their  religious  acts,  strikes  every  traveller  who  enters  a  Roman 

Catholic  Church  abroad In  no  place  of  worship  do 

we  witness  the  same  intense  abstraction  in  prayer,  the  same 

unaffected  devotion  of  mind The  public  mind  is 

evidently  more  religionized  than  in  Protestant  countries." 
(^Laing^s  Notes  of  a  Traveller .~) 

It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  multiply  testimonies  upon 
this  point,  were  it  necessary.  These  prove,  that  by  the  ad- 
mission of  Protestant  writers,  there  is  a  power  in  the  Catholic 
religion  to  produce  piety  and  holiness  such  as  is  not  exhibited 
elsewhere. 

Let  us  now  see  how  this  Church  of  which  I  am  speaking — 
this  Church  with  its  chief  and  central  See  at  Rome — stands 
in  reference  to  the  third  mark  of  the  Creed.  The  Church  of 
the  Creed  is  not  only  One,  and  Holy,  but  also  Catholic.  I 
have  shown  you  already  that  this  term,  in  its  primary  and 
ancient  sense,  means  universal,  and  implies  that  attribute  of 
diffusiveness  which  belongs  to  the  true  Church  as  the  Church 
of  all  nations,  and  not  of  one  nation  only  ;  of  the  whole  world 
and  not  of  a  single  country.  It  is  manifest  that  the  Church, 
with  the  Pope  as  its  head,  has  this  attribute.  It  is  a  notori- 
ous fact,  "known  and  read  of  all  men"  who  have  the  least 
idea  of  the  present  condition  of  the  world.  This  Church  is 
found  in  all  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  and  in  the  islands 
of  the  seas.  She  is  unirersal,  and  therefore.  Catholic.  The 
number  of  her  children  is  estimated  at  two  hundred  and  fifty 
millions,  and  they  are  found  wherever  the  human  foot  presses 


LETTER      VII.  "209 

the  oai  til.     This  number  exceeds  by  several  times,  the  grand 
total  of  all  the  Protestants,  and  Greek.*!,  and  other  Chri.stiau 
seets  of  vrhatever  name.     Your  own  Church  is  confined  to  a 
portion   of  North  America,   and  therefore  is  not  Catholic. 
The  Anglican  Church  is  confined  to  England  and  the  English 
dependencies,  and  therefore  it  is  not  Catholic.     The  Russian 
Church  is  confined  to  Russia,  and  therefore  it  is  not  Catholic. 
And  so  I  might  remark  of  the  smaller  sects  of  the  East. 
But  the  Church,  with  its  centre  in  the  Eternal  City,  is  not 
confined  by  any  geographical  or  national  boundaries.     She  is 
cosmopolitan — she  is  the  Church  of  the  whole  world — she  is 
universal — she   is  Catholic.     Iler  fold,   while   it  is  one,   is 
world-wide,  and  embraces  in  its  extent  all  nations  and  tribes 
of  the  earth.     The  Catholic  traveller  or  emigrant,  no  matter 
to  what  quarter  of  the  globe  he  directs  his  steps,  to  what  na- 
tion or  to  what  island,  finds  the  same  communion,  the  same 
authority,  the   same   altar   and  sacrifice — the  same   Mother 
Church.     But  how  diiferent  is  it  with  you,  my  friend.     Visit 
foreign  lands,  traverse  Europe,  Asia,  or  Afi-ica.  and  you  will 
find  yourself  everywhere  a  stranger  in  religion ;  you  recog- 
nize no  one.  and  no  one  recognizes  you.     In  one  country 
you  find  the  Russians,  in  another  the  Greeks,  in  a  third  the 
Armenians  or  Xestorians,  and  in  all  you  find  the  Catholics, 
but  you  abstain  from  their  fellowship,  considering  them  all 
in  serious  error;  while  they  all,  in  turn,  repudiate  you  as  a 
miserable  heretic  I     And  yet  you  profess  to  ' '  believe  in  the 
Communion  of  Saints  1"     With  the  Catholic  this  is  a  real 
and  practical  belief,  as  I  have  shown — he  is  in  ' '  communion" 
with  Christians  all  over  the  world.     But  you  are  in  commu- 
nion with  none.     Is  not  this  a  most  lamentable  condition  ? 
Ought  it  not  to  awaken  serious  suspicion  as  to  the  truth  of 
your  system  ?    But  the  doctrine  of  the  ' '  Communion  of  Saints" 
as  professed  in  the  Creed,  certainly  implies  the  obligation  of 
fellowship  with  all  other  true  and  orthodox  Christians.     We 
have  seen  that  the  word  "  Saints,"  was  originally  given  in  the 
Apostolic  age  to  all  Christians.     And  although  it  was  after- 
wards used  to  designate  those  of  more  eminent  piety,  especially 
if  they  had  won  the  crown  of  martyrdom,  and  passed  instantly 
to  their  heavenly  reward,  yet  it  has  always  continued  to  bear 
its  original   sense,  as  designating  the  whole  family  of  God, 
His  children  in  heaven  and  on  earth.     While,  then,  we  extend 
this  "  communion"  to  the  other  world,  so  as  to  include  our 
brethren  who  have  gone  before,  we  nnist  not  forget  that  this 


210  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

"  communion"  pertains  also  to  earth  ;  if  not  in  a  more  real, 
yet  in  a  more  palpable  sense.  There  is,  then,  a  communion, 
that  is  a  fellowship  of  saints,  of  true  Christians  on  earth. 
This  doctrine,  you  well  know,  is  most  clearly  and  beautifully 
set  forth  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  The  Apostles  themselves, 
constituted  the  original  nucleus  of  the  Church.  Hence,  in 
the  Book  of  Acts,  we  find  it  stated  of  the  first  converts,  that 
they  ' '  continued  steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and 
fellow sliijj.  {Ads  ii.  42.)  And  St.  Paul,  addressing  the 
converts  at  Ephesus,  says  :  ' '  Now,  therefore,  ye  are  no  more 
strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints, 
and  of  the  household  of  God ;  And  are  built  upon  the  fovm- 
dation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself 
being  the  chief  corner-stone  ;  In  whom  all  the  building  fitly 
framed  together  groweth  unto  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord." 
(Fjih.,  chap.  ii.  v.  19,  20,  21.)  Here  the  Apostle  compares 
Christians  to  a  building  having  unity  and  compactness,  which 
implies  the  closest  bond  of  fellowship.  In  another  place  he 
compares  them  to  the  human  body.  Thus  he  says  :  "For  by 
one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  (1.  Cor.  xii, 
13.)  And  after  showing  how  the  various  members  of  the 
body,  the  hand,  the  foot,  and  the  eye,  co-operate  together  and 
constitute  one  body,  he  proceeds  :  "  Now  ye  are  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  members  in  particular."  (76.'  v.  27.)  It  is  im- 
possible to  employ  a  figure  expressive  of  a  more  intimate 
union  than  this.  The  same  truth  is  taught  by  St.  John, 
when  he  says  :  "  If  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  God  is  in  the  light, 
we  have  fellowship  one  with  another."  (1  John  i.  7.)  This 
fellowship  or  communion  consists  in  partaking  of  the  same 
Sacraments,  holding  the  same  faith,  and  submitting  to  the 
same  government  as  the  bond  of  unity  and  concord.  It  ap- 
plies not  only  to  the  Christians  of  a  single  town,  state,  or 
country,  but  to  the  Christians  of  the  whole  world.  As  the 
members  of  a  single  congregation  are  in  communion  with 
each  other  through  their  pastor,  and  with  their  bishop  as  the 
head  of  the  diocese,  so  are  they  through  their  bishop,  in 
communion  with  the  chief  bishop,  and  with  aU  other  congre- 
gations and  bishops  throughout  the  world.  It  is  thus,  and 
only  thus,  that  the  scriptural  idea  of  the  ' '  one  body"  of 
Christians,  which  is  the  One  Church,  can  be  fully  realized. 
The  doctrine  of  the  ' '  Communion  of  Saints"  is  thus  inti- 
mately connected  with  that  of  the  Church.  In  the  Creed  the 
one  follows  the  other,  and  has  always  been  considered  its 


LKTTKK     VII.  iJll 

complement.  Tims,  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church — 
the  Communion  of  Saint.s.  But  such,  my  friend,  is  not  your 
Church.  Your  Church  is  not  the  Comnmnion  of  Saints. 
It  is  isolated  and  alone,  as  much  so  as  if  there  were  no 
other  Christians  in  the  world.  But  your  condition  is  not 
only  an  isolated  one  ;  yojj  are  actually  in  a  state  of  anta- 
gonism in  regard  to  all  other  religious  bodies,  excepting 
only  Anglicanism,  -with  which  also  you  differ  in  very  import- 
ant respects,  as  I  have  shown.  As  a  "Protestant,"  you 
arc  not  only  opposed  to  the  Catholics,  the  Russians,  the 
Greeks,  &.e.,  Sec,  charging  them  with  corruptions,  supersti- 
tions and  idolatries  :  but,  as  an  "  Epi.scopalian,"'  you  arc  also 
opposed  to  the  various  Protestant  denominations  of  Europe, 
England,  and  our  own  country.  These,  too,  you  charge 
with  fundamental  error ;  such  as  the  Presbyterians,  Metho- 
dists, Baptists.  Lutherans,  See.,  &c.  You  hold  no  communion 
with  tlicm.  You  will  not  allow  their  ministers  to  officiate  in 
your  pulpits,  and  refuse  to  recognise  their  ministrations.  If 
one  of  your  ministers  join  them,  j^ou  depose  him.  In  short, 
y«i  regard  and  treat  them  as  in  a  state  of  schism.  Thus 
you  are  a  perfect  Ishmaelite.  Your  hantl  is  against  every 
man.  Your  Church  "protests"  against  the  Catholic,  and 
refuses  to  recognize  the  Protestant.  She  raises  her  voice 
against  both.  One  of  your  ministers,  now  a  bishop,  pub- 
lished a  book,  and  called  it  the  DonUr  Witness  of  the  Church  ! 
He  shows  that  she  hears  y-i'fness  against  both  Catholics  and 
Protestants  I  No  doubt  she  docs.  But  is  that  witness  true, 
or  is  it  false?  Is  your  own  denomination,  born  only  yester- 
day and  small  in  numbers  and  extent,  right ;  and  all  the  rest 
of  Christendom  wrong,  including  Churches  as  old  as  Chris- 
tianity? The  idea  is  too  arrogant,  too  preposterous  to  be 
entertained  by  any  sensible  and  impartial  mind.  But  this 
extravagant  assumption,  implied  by  y owr  "  doiiUc  ?'-<V»f.9s" 
belligerency,  is  the  more  absurd  and  indefensible  because  you 
are  utterly  inconsistent  with  it.  "While  you  thus  oppose 
every  other  Church  and  denomination,  you  will  not  dare  to 
assert  that  yours  is  the  only  true  Church  upon  earth.  If 
you  asserted  this,  you  would  at  least  have  the  merit  of  con- 
sistenc}',  and  might  challenge  some  respect  fi-om  those  with 
whom  you  differ.  But  you  know  this  is  not  the  ca.se.  You 
acknowledge  the  Churches  of  France,  Italy,  Ivussia,  &e.,  to 
be  true  Churches,  "  branches  of  the  universal  Church,"  and 
yet  you  "  protest"  affainst  them,  and  liave  no  fellowship  with 
19  "^  • 


212  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

them  I  If  one  of  your  ministers  joins  them,  you  depose  him 
from  the  ministry  I  Is  that  the  way  to  treat  your  fellow 
' '  branches"  and  sister  Churches  ?  You  behave  towards 
them  as  if  they  were  not  Churches ;  and  yet  if  I  ask  you 
whether  they  are  Churches,  you  answer  in  the  affirmative. 
You  act  as  if  yours  were  the  only  Church  on  earth,  and  yet 
if  I  ask  you  whether  yours  is  the  only  Church,  you  reply  in 
the  negative!  Ah,  my  friend,  there  is  something  wrong 
here.  Your  position  is  a  false  one,  and  you  are  involved, 
thereby,  in  endless  inconsistencies.  Pent  up  in  one  little 
corner  of  the  earth,  diifering  from  and  opposing  all  other 
"  branches  of  the  universal  Church,"  including  that  ancient 
Church  at  Kome,  planted  by  the  two  glorious  Apostles,  Peter 
and  Paul,  you  are  plainly  in  a  state  of  schism,  cut  off  from 
the  "  Communion  of  Saints."  Let  me  again  remind  you  of 
that  pertinent  and  decisive  passage  already  quoted  from  St. 
Augustine,  one  of  the  saints  in  the  English  Calendar — that 
they  u-Jio  are  found  separated  in  some  particular  spot,  and  do 
not  commnne  with  the  Church  as  it  is  everyichere  spread 
abroad,  are  not  in  the  Catholic  Church.  This  is  a  rational 
and  inevitable  conclusion.  The  Church  is  one  body — if  one 
is  separated  from  any  portion  of  that  body,  he  is  necessarily  se- 
parated from  the  whole.  To  believe  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  yet  to  refuse  to  commune  with  it  as  it  is  spread  abroad 
over  Europe  and  elsewhere,  is  a  self-contradiction.* 

But  I  was  showing  you  that  that  vast  communion,  with 
Rome  as  its  centre,  possesses  the'  third  mark  of  the  true 
Church— that  it  is  Catholic.  That  it  is  Catholic,  in  fact, 
that  is,  generally  or  universally  diffused  over  the  earth,  I 
have  already  shown.  That  it  is  Catholic  by  name,  it  is  not 
necessary  for  me  to  prove.  This  is  the  name  by  which  she 
calls  herself,  and  by  which  others  call  her.  For  more  than  a 
thousand  years  before  you  sprung  into  being,  her  children 
had,  in  the  creeds,  professed  their  faith  in  the  "Catholic 
Church,"  and  understood  that  Church  to  be  no  other  than 
the  one  to  which  they  belonged.     They  still  continue  the  use 

*  I  shall  not  indulge  in  any  invidious  remarks  resijecting  the  ineffi- 
ciency of  your  Church  ;  but  you  must  allow  me  to  remind  you  of  ac- 
knowledgments of  this  sort  which  hare  been  publicly  made  by  your 
own  ministers.  A  few  years  ago  a  memorial  was  presented  to  your 
Genei-al  Convention,  signed  by  a  number  of  bishops  and  clergymen, 
asking  that  some  plan  might  be  adopted  to  adapt  the  Church  to  the 
wants  of  the  countrj-,  and  expressly  acknowledging  that  the  Episco- 
^»al  Church  is  "inadequate  to  do  the  work  of  the  Lord  in  this  land  !'' 


LETTKU    VII.  'IIS 

of  those  creeds  in  the  same  sense;  and  -whcrovcr  found, 
whether  in  Eui'opo,  Asia,  Africa  or  America,  they  call  them- 
selves Catholics.  This  name,  then,  was  hcr's  long  before 
your  Church  or  Anglicanism  had  an  existence.  It  is  her's, 
therefore,  by  inheritance ;  conset{Ucntly,  she  possesses  it  both 
de  facto  and  de  jure.  Even  the  general  usage  of  the  world 
and  of  sectarians  has  accorded  this  title  to  her.  Everywhero 
she,  and  no  other,  is  called  the  Catholic  Church.  In  this 
respect,  the  very  language  used  by  the  old  fothers  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centui'ics,  when  pointing  to  the '  Catholic 
Church  of  their  age,  is  just  as  applicable  to  her  as  if  spoken 
only  yesterday.  Thus  St.  Augustine,  showing  the  difference 
between  sectarians  and  the  Catholic  communion,  says — 
"  Consider  how  great  is  the  folly  of  heretics.  Severed  from 
the  Church  of  Christ,  holding  a  part,  and  letting  go  the 
whole,  they  refuse  to  communicate  with  the  world  over  which 
the  glory  of  Christ  is  spread.  But  we  Catholics  are  in  every 
nation ;  for  in  whatever  land  is  the  majesty  of  Christ,  there 
we  hold  communion."  (In  Psal.  56.)  Now  I  ask  you,  my 
friend,  is  not  your  condition,  compared  with  that  of  the  Ca- 
tholic of  this  day,  precisely  the  same  now  ?  See  what  influ- 
ence even  the  name  of  Catholic  had  with  that  great  saint 
and  champion  of  the  Church,  when  he  states,  in  his  treatise 
on  the  True  Rcli()ion,  that  among  the  considei'ations  which 
bound  him  to  the  Church,  "  is  the  name  CatlioUc,  which, 
not  without  reason  in  the  midst  of  so  many  heresies,  this 
Church  alone  has  so  retained,  that  although  all  heretics  wish 
to  acquire  this  name,  should  a  stranger  ask  where  the  Catho- 
lics assemble,  the  heretics  themselves  will  not  dare  to  point 
out  any  of  their  own  places  of  meeting."  Is  not  this  also 
literally  true  at  the  present  day  ?  The  Church  in  commu- 
nion with  the  Roman  See,  is  the  only  Church  which  is,  by 
general  consent  and  usage,  called  Catholic;  although  occa- 
sionall}'  a  party  will  arise,  such  as  the  Puseyites,  who  vainly 
endeavor  to  get  themselves  called  by  this  name.  Again,  says 
this  same  father — "  It  is  our  duty  to  hold  the  Christian  Ileli- 
gion  and  the  communion  of  that  Church  which  is  Catholic, 
and  is  so  called,  not  by  us  only,  but  by  all  its  adversaries." 
This,  again,  applies  to  our  communion  only.  St.  Cyril, 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  lays  down  the  same  rule  for  the  guid- 
ance of  the  true  Chri-stian  of  his  day.  Addressing  the  Cate- 
chumens, he  says:  "Should  you  come  into  a  city,  do  not 
inquire  merely  for  the  house  of  God,  for  so  heretics  call  their 


214  LET  THUS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

places  of  meeting,  noi'  yet  ask  merely  for  the  Cliurcb,  but 
say  the  Catholic  Church — for  this  is  the  jjroper  name."  Now 
I  need  not  say  you  do  not  follow  any  such  rule  when  you  go 
to  a  strange  city.  When  you  are  seeking  a  place  of  worship, 
you  ask  where  is  the  "  Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  You 
know  very  well  if  you  were  to  ask  ' '  where  is  the  Catholic 
ChiU'ch,"  as  St.  Cyril  enjoins,  you  would  be  directed  to  a 
Church  in  which  there  is  an  Altar  and  the  Holy  Sacrifice  of 
the  Mass.  It  is  only  we,  who  acknowledge  the  authority  of 
the  Pope,  that  follow  this  ancient  rule.  We  then,  and  we 
only,  are  Catholics.  We,  and  we  only,  follow  the  rule  laid 
down  by  the  great  doctors  and  fathers,  who  were  the  cham- 
pions of  the  Church  at  the  time  when  the  Creed  was  framed 
at  Constantinople.     We  arc  with  them,  and  they  are  with  us. 

That  v,'e  Tv'ho  are  in  communion  with  the  See  of  Rome, 
constitute  the  Catholic  body,  I  have  now  shown.  Ours  is  the 
Catholic  Church,  because  universally  diffused,  and  because  it 
is  so  called,  not  only  by  ourselves,  but  by  all  sectarians  and 
the  world  at  large.  In  every  age,  the  See  of  Peter,  at  Rome, 
has  been  regarded  as  the  depository  of  the  governing  power 
in  this  body ;  so  that  communion  with  it,  is  at  once  the  evi- 
dence of  Catholic  communion.  In  fact,  the  two  arc  identi- 
cal. It  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  undertake  to  prove  this 
point,  as  the  question  before  us  is  simply  which  body  or 
communion  possesses  the  four  marks  of  the  Creed.  The 
primacy  of  the  Pope,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  the  chief 
of  the  Apostles,  can  be  established  in  the  clearest  manner 
from  history,  from  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  and  from  the 
proceedings  of  ancient  councils.* 

It  remains,  now,  to  inquire  whether  this  Church  does  not 
possess  the  fourth  mark  of  the  Creed — whether  she  is  not 
"Apostolic."  That  she  inherits  also  this  glorious  attribute, 
is  most  easily  demonstrated.  This  Church  has  her  centre  of 
authority  at  Rome.  The  foundations  of  the  edifice  were  laid 
in  that  city.  The  superstructure  has  been  built  up  with  ma- 
terials from  every  nation  under  the  siui.  The  Church  at 
Rome  was  the  nucleus  around  which  all  other  Churches  were 
gathered,  and  with  which  they  were  consolidated  and  made 
One,    Holy,   Catholic   or  universal   Church.     Now  that  the 

■»  To  those  who  vai\.j  uish  to  investigate  this  question,  I  would  re- 
commend a  learned  and  able  Avork  entitled,  "  The  Primacy  of  the 
Apostolic  See  Vindicated,"  by  the  present  distinguished  Archbishop  of 
Baltimore. 


LETTER     VII.  215 

Church  of  Rome  was  Apostolic  in  origin,  it  cannot  bo  neces- 
sary for  me  to  prove.  Every  reader  of  ecclesiastical  history 
knows  that  the  Churcli  was  first  planted  or  established  and 
governed  at  Rome  by  St.  Peter ;  and  having  been  first 
planted  or  ruled  by  that  great  Apostle,  it  is  necessarily 
''  Apostolic''  in  its  origin.  That  the  Church  thus  established 
by  St.  Peter  has  continued  at  Rome  ever  since,  although 
sending  forth  its  branches  like  a  fruitful  tree  into  every  part 
of  the  earth,  is  also  well  known  to  every  reader  of  history. 
"With  that  Cliurch  we  are  connected  as  members.  We  ac- 
knowledge its  bishop  as  our  chief  ruler  on  earth,  and  form 
with  him  and  om*  fellow  members  throughout  the  earth,  a 
compact,  visible  body.  The  union  of  all  the  members  with 
that  Apostolic  head,  constitutes  the  whole  body  Apostolic. 
It  is  shown  that  our  communion  is  Apostolic  in  origin  and 
descent.  The  term  Apostolic  implies  also  the  possession  of 
Apostolic  orders  and  jurisdiction.  The  validity  of  our  orders 
is  universally  admitted.  As  to  jurisdiction,  the  case  is  equal- 
ly unquestionable.  The  Roman  See,  as  I  have  stated  above, 
was  founded  by  the  Apostle  Peter.  Its  jurisdiction  was 
therefore  originally  derived  from  him ;  and  that  jurisdiction 
has  been  regularly  transmitted,  by  a  succession  of  Popes,  to 
the  present  day.  That  indeed,  is  the  true  and  only  source 
of  jurisdiction  to  the  whole  Church  at  the  present  day. 
That  our  communion  is  "Apostolic"  likewise  in  doctrine, 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  she  holds  all  the  primitive  and 
orthodox  creeds,  viz :  the  Apostles',  Xicene  and  Athana- 
sian ;  and  although  she  holds  more  than  is  expressly  con- 
tained in  those  creeds,  yet  she  holds  nothing  contrary  to 
them.  And  no  argument  can  be  framed  against  her  on  ac- 
count of  these  additions ;  because,  as  I  have  shown  in  a  for- 
mer letter,  the  Chui'ch,  in  every  age,  has  exercised  the 
power  of  making  additions  to  suit  the  times,  |of  which  the 
creeds  themselves  furnish  ample  evidence,  since  they  contain 
several  articles  which  were  not  in  them  originally. 

In  the  early  Church  there  were  several  Sees  which  were 
called  "Apostolic,"  from  their  having  being  founded  by 
Apostles,  such  as  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  kc.  13ut,  of  the.se 
Apostolic  Sees,  Rome  is  the  only  one  now  remaining — the 
others  having  become  extinct.  This  is  a  most  significant 
and  impressive  fact.  It  not  only  shows  a  special  Providence 
in  favor  of  the  See  of  Peter,  but  it  seems  designed  to  "show 
still  more  strongly  the  absolute  necessity  of  union  with  that 
19* 


216  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

See  in  order  to  be  iu  the  Apostolic  Church.  Search  the 
■world  over  and  you  can  find  no  other  Church  of  Apostolic 
origin  and  descent.  The  Roman  See  is  the  only  See  that 
can  boast  of  this  glorious  attribute.  It  was  founded  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago  by  the  Chief  Apostle,  and  there  it  stands 
as  vigorous,  powerful  and  fruitful  as  ever.  In  the  third  cen- 
tury, St.  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  in  Africa,  called  that 
See  "  the  root  and  matrix  of  the  Catholic  Church."  {Epit. 
45  ad  Corn.~)  Such  it  was  then  ;  such  it  is  now.  All  true 
"branches"  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  necessarily  united 
with  that  "  root"  as  was  that  "  branch"  over  -which  Cyprian, 
the  saint  and  martyr,  presided,  and  thus  all  partake  of  the 
attribute  of  Apostolicity.  But  what  sort  of  a  "branch"  is 
that  which  is  separated  from  the  root,  and  "  independent"  of 
the  root?  It  is,  necessarily,  schismatical  and  dead,  what- 
ever may  be  its  numbers  and  its  wealth.  It  is  to  that  ven- 
erable See  that  all  the  nations  of  Europe  and  America  owe 
their  Christianity.  During  the  early  and  middle  ages  she 
sent  forth  her  missionaries  to  every  part  of  the  earth,  who 
gathered  into  her  bosom  the  people  of  every  land  and  tribe. 
Thus,  as  I  have  related,  Augustine  "was  sent  to  England,  and 
there  he  christianized  the  Pagan  Saxons,  and  organized  a 
powerful  Church,  which  continued  until  the  days  of  Henry 
VIII.  From  England  you  of  this  country  derived  your 
Christianity.  Consequently,  you  are  indebted  for  it  to  that 
Holy  See,  from  which  you  now  turn  away  in  disobedience. 
I  have  now  shown  you,  my  friend,  that  the  Church,  in 
communion  'With  the  Eoman  See,  possesses  all  the  four  marks 
laid  down  in  the  Creed — and  since  no  other  Church  possesses 
them  as  I  have  shown- — she,  and  she  only,  is  the  "One, 
Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  If,  then,  you  truly 
hold  the  Creed,  you  must  believe  in  her,  and  in  her  only. 
To  believe  in  the  Church  is  to  confide  in  her,  to  submit  to 
her,  and  to  receive  and  follow  her  teaching.  In  order  to  do 
this  we  must  relinquish  our  preconceived  opinions,  and  our 
private  judgment,  and  "  receive  with  meekness  the  engrafted 
word  which  is  able  to  save  our  souls."  It  is  idle  to  talk  of 
submitting  to  the  Church,  and  obeying  the  Church,  while  we 
sit  in  judgment  upon  her  teaching,  and  set  up  our  opinions 
against  her  authority.  Oiu*  Lord  says,  "He  that  will  not 
hear  the  Church  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  and  pub- 
lican." A  Church  in  which  no  authority  is  exercised  over 
our  belief  and  conduct,  is  not  the  Church  of  the  Scriptures  ; 


LETTER     VII.  '117 

nor  is  it  a  Cluircb  worth  belonging  to — for  it  is  nothing  inoi*c 
than  a  voluntary  society.  To  submit  to  the  Church  may  be 
repugnant  to  liiunan  pride,  but  it  is  the  only  way  of  salvation 
revealed  in  the  Bible.  8t.  Cyprian,  when  arguing  against 
the  schismatics  of  his  day,  did  not  hesitate  to  declare — "  Ho 
cannot  have  (lod  for  his  Father,  who  has  not  the  Church  for 
his  Mother."  This  is  strong  language,  but  it  is  not  sh-onger 
than  is  used  by  some  of  3'our  own  divines,  particularly  Bish- 
op Pearson.  But  the  absolute  necessity  of  being  in  the  true 
Church,  you  must  admit.  For  how  can  you  ''believe  in 
the  Catholic  Church"  without  considering  it  necessary  to  be- 
long to  it  'i  To  believe  in  her  is  to  acknowledge  her  author- 
ity. But  to  acknowledge  that  authority,  and  yet  refuse  to 
submit  to  it,  is  only  to  involve  yourself  in  inconsistency  and 
self-condemnation.  Out  of  the  pale  of  the  Church  we  have 
no  I'ight  to  hope  for  salvation.  "  The  necessity  of  believing 
the  Ifoh/  Catholic  Church. ^^  saj's  one  of  your  highest  author- 
ities, Bishop  Pearson,  ''appcarcth  first  in  this,  that  Christ 
hath  appointed  it  as  the  only  way  unto  eternal  life."  Pear- 
son follows  up  this  strong  assertion  by  others  of  a  similar 
character,  and  concludes  by  declaring  that  as  none  were  sav- 
ed from  the  deluge  who  were  not  in  the  Ark  of  Noah,  "  So 
none  shall  ever  escape  the  eternal  wrath  of  God,  which  be- 
long not  to  the  Church  of  God."  (Expos,  of  Creed,  pp. 
006-7.) 

Before  I  finish  this  letter,  allow  me  to  ask  your  attention 
to  a  few  remarks  upon  one  other  article  in  the  Creed,  as  it 
stands  in  your  Prayer-Book.  It  is  as  follows  :  1  achnoidedge 
one  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins.  This  article,  as  you 
are  aware,  is  not  found  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  so  far  at  least 
as  Baptism  is  concerned.  In  that  Creed  you  simply  profess 
your  belief  in  ' '  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  It  was  not  until  the 
Council  of  Constantinople  that  the  article  was  inserted  by  the 
Church  in  its  present  shape — "I  acknowledge  one  Baptism 
for  the  remission  of  sins."  The  meaning  of  this  article  is 
obvious.  It  plainly  asserts  that  remission  of  sins  is  conveyed 
through  Baptism.  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  is  bap- 
tism with  that  view  or  to  that  end.  Baptism  is  the  Sacra- 
mental means,  or  instrumentality,  by  which  remission  is  ob- 
tained, and  the  soul  is  regenerated.  You  will  find  this  doc- 
trine taught  also  in  the  Baptismal  service  of  your  Prayer- 
Book.  Thus,  in  one  of  the  prayers  the  minister  saj-s  :  "  We 
call  upon  Thee  for  this  infant,  that  he,  coming  to  Thy  holy 


218  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Baptism,  may  receive  remission  of  sin  by  spiritual  regener- 
ation." In  another,  he  says:  "  Sanctify  this  water  to  the 
mystical  washing  away  of  sin,  and  grant  that  this  child,  now 
to  be  baptized  therein,  may  receive  the  fullness  of  Thy  grace, 
and  ever  remain  in  the  number  of  Thy  faithful  children." 
And  after  baptizing  the  child,  he  says:  "  Seeing  now,  dearly 
beloved,  that  this  child  is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the 
body  of  Christ's  Church,"  &c.  This  doctrine  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church — and  here 
again  your  Prayer-Book  bears  testimony  in  her  favor.  But, 
although  you  profess  it  in  the  Creed,  and  repeat  it  at  the  bap- 
tism of  your  children,  yet  the  doctrine  is  repudiated  by  your 
people,  and  publicly  disavowed  and  denied  by  your  clergy ! 
This  is  another  glaring  inconsistency.  This  doctrine  is  de- 
nied, too,  not  only  in  the  face  of  the  Prayer-Book,  but  also 
in  the  face  of  the  Bible,  to  which  you  all  profess  to  appeal  as 
the  ultimate  standard.  Does  not  our  Lord  refer  to  the  Sac- 
rament of  Baptism,  when  he  says:  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God."  And  in  accordance  with  this  divine  instruction,  when 
St.  Peter  first  announced  the  terms  of  salvation  at  Jerusa- 
lem, he  said :  "  Bepent  and  he  hajitizcd  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  {Acts 
ii.  38.)  Ananias,  also,  when  addressing  St.  Paul,  pointed 
to  Baptism  as  the  means  of  obtaining  remission  of  sins — 
"Arise_,"  said  he,  "  and  be  ha2^fizccl  and  loash  away  thy  sins." 
(^Acts  xxii.  16.)  By  St.  Paul,  also,  similar  effects  are  as- 
cribed to  this  Sacrament,  when  he  calls  it,  "  the  washing  of 
regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (^Tit. 
iii.  5.)  These  and  other  passages  of  Scripture  which  I  might 
quote,  teach  plainly  the  doctrine  asserted  in  the  Creed,  that 
remission  of  sins  is  given  in  Baptism.  But  most  of  your 
members  and  clergy  reject  it,  and  look  upon  this  great  Sac- 
rament as  a  mere  religious  ceremony,  by  which  a  name  is 
given  !  Thus,  again,  it  is  made  evident  that  it  is  the  Catho- 
lic, and  the  Catholic  only,  who  adheres  strictly  to  the  ancient 
Creed,  and  to  the  language  of  the  Bible. 

I  have  now  finished  my  remarks  upon  the  docti-ines  taught 
in  the  Creeds,  and  in  my  next  letter  I  shall  proceed  with  my 
observations  upon  the  successive  portions  of  the  Prayer-Book. 

A.  B. 


LETTER  VIII. 

'Rejpouses,  Collects,  &c.,  borrowed  from  Catholic  Jlissal. — Evening 
Prayer. — Magniticat  discarded. — Athauasian  Creed. — The  Litany 
borrowed  from  the  Catholics. — Various  changes  in  it. — Some  of  its 
petitions  examined. — "Heresy"  how  known. — Repetitions. — Col- 
lects, Epistles  and  Gospels. — Ash-Wednesday. — Christmas. — Whit- 
Sunday. — Saint's  Days. — Communion  service. — The  Decalogue  and 
the  use  of  images. — Seventh  Day  or  Sabbath. — Doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence. — Ancient  Liturgies  contain  Prayers  for  the  Dead. — Sacri- 
fice always  an  essential  part  of  worship. — Predicted  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament.— Reservation  of  Consecrated  Elements. — Baptismal  service. 
— Its  Doctrine. — Use  of  the  Cross. — The  Catechism. — Its  Doctrine 
respecting  the  Sacraments. — Confirmation  service  examined. — Its 
defective  character. — Marriage  service  differs  from  the  English  book. 
— Visitation  of  Sick. — Confession  and  Absolution  prescribed. — 
Communion  of  the  Sick. — Commination  service. — The  Psalter. 

My  Dear  Freexd: 

After  reciting  the  Creed,  your  uiinistcr  i.s  directed  to  pro- 
ceed by  saying — 

"The  Lord  be  with  you." 

Alls. — "  And  with  thy  spirit."  ' 

This  form  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  Catholic  service  of  the 
Mass,  from  which  it  is  evidently  taken.  Then  follow  certain 
other  brief  petitions  and  responses,  as,  "Show  Thy  mercy 
upon  us."  Ans — "And  grant  us  Thy  salvation" — all  of 
which  may  be  found  in  various  Catholic  Litanies  and  servi- 
ces. After  these,  the  rubric  of  the  English  Prayer-Book 
requires  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  be  said  by  the  minister  and 
people  "  with  aloud  voice."  But  your  American  rcvi.sers  left 
out  both  the  rubric  and  the  prayer  ;  I  suppose  they  thotight 
so  many  Pater  Nostcrs  savored  too  much  of  ' '  Popery."  They 
also  omitted  a  number  of  petitions  and  responses  which  here 
follow  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the  English  book. 

Yom*  minister  next  repeats  various  collects  and  prayers, 
upon  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  any  special  remarks, 
except  that  several  of  them  are  taken  from  the  3Iissal  and 
other  Catholic  sources,  and  were  used  in  the  Catholic  Church 
ages  before  Thomas  Cranmer  saw  the  light  of  day. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  Order  of  "  Evening  Prayer."  This 
is,  for  the  most  part,  a  mere  repetition  of  the  services  con- 
tained in  the  "  5lorning  Prayer,"  and  therefore  it  contains 

(219) 


220  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

but  little  that  requires  notice.  I  observe,  liowever,  another 
deviation  here  from  the  order  of  the  English  Prayer-Book. 
After  the  first  lesson,  the  rubric  in  the  English  book  directs 
that  "the  Magnijicot,  or  the  song  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
Mary,"  shall  be  said,  which  is  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  of 
St.  Luke.  Instead  of  this  glorious  canticle,  which  has  been 
sung  in  the  Church  from  the  very  days  of  the  Apostles,  your 
American  reformers  ajipointed  the  98th  Psalm.  St.  Liike, 
under  the  influence  of  divine  inspiration,  deemed  this  beauti- 
ful song  of  the  Virgin  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures— but  your  enlightened  revisers,  grown  wiser  than  St. 
Lulce,  wiser  than  the  Church  of  all  ages,  wiser  even  than 
their  Anglican  fathers,  utterly  discarded  it,  and  gave  you  in 
place  of  it  a  psalm  used  in  the  Jewish  worship ! 

In  the  English  book  following  the  ' '  Evening  Prayer"  I 
find  the  Athanasian  Creed,  preceded  by  a  rubric,  requiring  it 
to  be  recited  in  the  morning  service  on  certain  festivals,  but 
this  Creed,  as  I  have  remarked  in  a  previous  letter,  is  entire- 
ly left  out  of  the  American  book,  and  no  allusion,  whatever, 
made  to  it ! 

The  next  service' in  your  Prayer-Book  is  the  "Litany,  or 
General  Suj^plication,  to  be  used  after  morning  service  on 
Sundays,  Wednesdays  and  Fridays."  No  portion  of  your 
Prayer-Book  has  been  more  highly  extolled  than  this  Litany. 
Your  writers  are  accustomed  to  bestow  upon  it  the  most  un- 
bounded laudations,  as  if  it  were  little  short  of  inspired  and 
divine.  This  is  all  very  well.  It  richly  deserves  such  en- 
comiums. But,  my  friend,  whence  came  this  sublime  Litany? 
Was  it  composed  by  Cranmer,  or  by  any  of  Queen  Elizabeth^s 
bishops  V  Not  a  word  of  it.  It  was  used  by  the  Catholics 
of  England  long  before  the  schism  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  hence 
like  the  rest  of  your  services  most  praised,  it  is  derived  from 
Catholic  times  and  Catholic  sources.  If  you  require  proof  of 
this  assertion^  it  is  furnished  by  your  own  high  authority, 
Bishop  Short,  who  says  of  the  Prayer-Book — "  Almost  the 
whole  of  it  was  taken  from  different  Roman  Catholic  services, 
particularly  those  after  the  use  of  SaUsbury,  which  were  then 
generally  adopted  in  the  South  of  England  ;  and  the  princi- 
ple on  which  the  compilers  proceeded  in  the  work,  was  to 
alter  as  little  as  possible  what  had  been  familiar  to  the  people. 
Thus  the  Litany  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  in  the  Salishury 
Hours,  excepting  that  one  hundred  and  sixteen  addresses  to 
the  Apostles,  the  Vire-in,  and  different  saints,  are  left  out." 


LETTKn     VIII.  lilil 

{Hist,  of  Ch.  o/Eng.,  §  744.)  Here  is  testimony  that  you 
cannot  resist.  Your  Litany  is  only  Avliat  had  been  previous- 
ly used  by  the  Catholics,  with  the  omission  of  certain  ad- 
dresses to  the  saints.  And  if  you  will  examine  a  Catholic 
Prayer-Book,  you  will  find  that  the  same  Litany  is  still  in  use 
among  us. 

I  have  said  that  not  a  word  of  this  Litany  was  composed  by 
your  Anglican  fathers.  I  believe  this  remark  is  literally 
true  of  the  Litany  as  it  stands  in  your  American  book ;  but  in 
the  English  book  it  contains  several  petitions  which  were  in- 
troduced by  the  authorities  of  that  Church,  as  those  for  the 
king,  the  royal  family  and  the  nobility.  There  was  formerly 
also  another  petition  in  it,  whicli  has  been  expunged.  It  was 
this — "From  the  tyranny  of  the  Bishop  of  Home  and  all  his 
detestable  enormities,  Good  Lord  deliver  us."  This  delecta- 
ble petition  was  inserted  under  Henry  A'HL,  when  the  Lit- 
any was  first  rendered  into  English. =i=  Certainly,  it  well  be- 
came that  filthy  and  bloody  despot  to  teach  the  people  to  pray 
against  the  "tyranny"  and  "  destestable  enormities"  of  some- 
body else  I  It  forcibly  reminds  one  of  the  proverb  about 
"  satan  reproving  sin."  But  how  came  this  petition  to  be 
omitted '{  It  was  left  out  at  the  revision  of  the  Prayer-Book, 
which  took  place  under  Queen  Elizabeth,  partly  I  believe 
because  they  had  grown  ashamed  of  it,  and  partly  because 
they  wished  to  conciliate  the  Catholics.  But  whatever  was 
the  motive,  the  omission  was  a  decided  improvement,  on  the 
score  of  taste,  at  least.  At  the  same  time  its  history  is  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  variations  of  the  Prayer-Book, 
and  of  the  absence  of  fixed  views  in  its  framers  and  revisers. 

I  find  that  your  American  revisers  have  made  a  change  in 
another  petition  of  the  Litany.  In  the  English  book  it  con- 
tains this  sentence  :  ' '  From  fornication  and  all  other  deadly 
sin."  For  these  words  you  have  substituted  a  softer  expres- 
sion, thus  :  "  From  all  inordinate  and  sinful  affections."  In 
this  way  you  have  also  got  rid  of  that  phrase,  "  deadly  sin," 
and  avoided  countenancing  the  Catholic  distinction  between 
mortal  and  venial  sin.  You  may  esteem  this  an  improve- 
ment— but  if  so,  it  is  a  poor  compliment  to  your  mother 
Clmrch  of  England. f 

*  Concerning  the  insertion  and  subsequent  omission  of  this  singular 
petition,  see  Sliorf  3  History,  g  224,  g  T4G,  note. 

fBut  the  phrase,  "deadly  sin,'"  is  retained  in  tlie  Thirty-Nine  Arti- 
cles.    See  Art.  16. 


!222  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Your  Litany  contains  a  petition  in  behalf  of  the  Church, 
which  you  woukl  do  well  to  ponder  in  connection  with  my 
remarks  in  the  previous  letter-  It  is  :  "  That  it  may  pleafee 
thee  to  rule  and  govern  thy  Holu  Church  Universal."  The 
same  petition  is  used  in  the  ' '  Prayer  for  all  conditions  of 
Men,',  found  in  your  Morning  and  Evening  service,  in  which 
you  say,  ' '  More  especially  we  pray  for  thy  Ilolfj  Ch  nrch 
Universal.''''  Once  more  I  ask  you  to  point  out  that  "  Holy 
Church  Universal."  Where  is  she  ?  Who  are  her  members  ? 
What  are  the  laws  of  her  being  ?  Who  are  her  officers  ? 
You  also  pray  in  this  Litany,  to  be  delivered  from  "  all  false 
doctrine,  heresy  and  schism."  Now,  my  friend,  what  do  you 
mean  by  these 'terms?  Do  5'-ou  designate  something  actual 
and  real,  or  are  they  mere  formal  expressions  without  mean- 
ing? LTardly  the  latter,  for  you  would  not  insult  the  Deity 
by  unmeaning  requests.  If  the  former,  there  must  be  such 
evils  in  reality  as  "false  doctrine,  heresy  and  schism."  And 
if  so,  l)y  what  standard  do  you  judge  whether  any  opinion  or 
act  belongs  to  this  category?  If  schism  be  an  evil,  remem- 
ber that  I  have  proved,  that  the  Anglican  Church  originated 
in  schism;  and  that  3'our  own  Church,  having  sprung  from 
that  severed  "  branch,"  is  involved  in  the  same  sin.  And  if 
schism  be  an  evil,  how  do  you  reconcile  it  with  the  idea  ex- 
pressed by  the  phrase,  the  ' '  Holy  Church  Universal  ?"  And 
if  "false  doctrine  and  heresy"  be  evils,  how  do  you  deter- 
mine what  is  such  ?  How,  especially,  do  you  know  what  is 
' '  heresy  ?  Your  canons  have  provided  that  a  minister  shall 
be  tried  for  ' '  heretical  doctrine  ;"  but  your  Church  has  never 
yet,  I  believe,  defined  what  heresy  is.  I  turn  to  one  of  your 
authorities,  Staunton's  Dictionarjj  of  the  Church,  for  the 
meaning  of  "heresy."  I  find  the  following  luminous  defini- 
tion— "A  wilful  and  obstinate  departure  from  the  orthodox 
faith  of  the  Christian  Church !"  If  this  writer  would  tell  us 
what  he  means  by  the  "  orthodox  faith,"  and  by  the  "  Chris- 
tian Church,"  his  definition  might  be  at  least  intelligible.  If 
every  individual  is  to  decide  for  hhnself  what  is  heresy,  upon 
the  principle  of  private  judgment,  there  will  necessarily  be  as 
many  definitions  of  the  term  as  there  arc  diffferent  mental  and 
moral  qualifications  among  men.  Orthodoxy  will*  be  my 
"  doxy,"  and  hetereodoxy  will  be  your  "  doxy."  This  pro- 
cess does  away  with  all  distinction  between  truth  and  false- 
hood, and  involves  the  Christian  feith  in  uncertainty  and  con- 
fusion.    But  if  yoix  say  the  Church  is  to  decide  what  is  heresy, 


L  E  T  T  E  It     VIII.  '22o 

then  I  ask  you,  what  Church  ?  If  you  meau  your  iiwn  Clnuch, 
then  I  ask  you^  whether  your  own  Church  is  infallible  ?  If 
not,  she  may  err,  and,  consequently,  mislead  you  upon  the 
subject.  But  if  you  moan  the  "  Church  Universal,"  as  made 
up  of  various  independent  branches  accordin<i;  to  your  vis- 
ionary theoiy,  3-ou  resort  to  what  is  impracticable  and  absurd. 
These  "branches"  already  differ  with  each  other  as  to  the 
fundamentals  of  religion,  and  they  do  not,  and  canuot  unite 
in  giving  an  unanimous  definition  upon  the  points  in  dispute 
between  them.  They  have  been  at  variance  for  more  than 
three  centuries.  They  disown  each  other,  and  cannot  speak 
in  concert.  They  have  no  voice.  They  are  dumb.  Where 
then  is  that  authoritative  voice,  which  is  to  declare  to  you 
what  is  heresy  ?  It  has  no  existence  upon  your  theory. 
Errorists  may  rise  up  and  belch  forth  the  most  abominable 
and  blasphemous  doctrines,  by  which  they  may  corrupt  and 
seduce  the  faithful.  But,  upon  your  theory,  tliere  is  no  tri- 
bunal in  Christendom  competent  to  pronounce  an  authorita- 
tive decision  against  them.  Do  you  not  sec  the  dilemma  to 
which  your  theory  of  the  Church  reduces  you?  You  cannot, 
with  reason  and  consistenc}',  set  up  even  the  Prayer-Book  as 
a  standard  by  which  to  test  the  soundness  of  any  doctrine. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  the  Praycr-Book  has  undergone  several 
doctrinal  changes  in  the  various  revisions  to  which  it  has  been 
subjected  ;  so  that  at  one  time,  it  has  taught  one  thing,  and  at 
another  time,  a  very  diff'erent  thing.  Which  period  or  edition 
of  it,  then,  shall  be  taken  as  the  standard.  In  the  second 
place,  the  Prayer-Book  is  a  mere  compilation  from  the  litur- 
gies and  other  devotional  services  used  prior  to  the  schism  of 
Ilenry  YIII.,  and  many  portions  of  these  old  services  hav- 
ing been  omitted  and  discarded,  who  shall  decide  whether 
all  the  sound  and  orthodox  doctrines  of  the  old  Church  was 
retained  in  that  compilation  ?  The  compilers  were  neither 
inspired  nor  infallible,  as  they  plainly  shewed,  by  their  vari- 
ous changes  from  time  to  time.  Consequentl}^  their  work 
cannot  be  accepted  as  a  reliable  test  of  orthodoxy,  especially 
in  the  face  of  other  "  branches"  (as  you  say)  of  the  Church 
Universal,  which  still  hold  and  retain  what  was  discarded  by 
your  compilers,  and  hold  and  retain  it  as  a  part  of  the  true 
faith  received  from  the  Apostles.  Hence,  your  Prayer-Book 
fails  you,  just  as  much  as  your  ' '  private  judgment."  Neither 
avails  as  a  rule  of  faith,  and  your  little  bark  is  out  upon  th<- 

•20 


224  LETTEKS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

wide  sea,  tossed  about  by  the  winds.,  without  rudder  or 
compass. 

Your  American  Prayer-Book  departs  again  from  the  Eng- 
lish ,  in  giving  the  minister  permission  to  omit  a  large  portion 
of  the  Litany — a  permission  of  which  he  avails  himself  almost 
invariably.  In  the  jDortion  thus  allowed  to  be  omitted,  I  find 
the  Lord's  Prayer  again.  This  is  the  third  time  that  this 
prayer  is  used  in  the  Morning  Prayer  in  the  English  book, 
and  as  it  occurs  twice  in  the  Communion  service^  your  Eng- 
lish brethren  say  five  Pater  JVosfers  during  one  assemblage. 
You  do  not  say  quite  so  many — but  you  say  several,  and  you 
also  indulge  in  various  repetitions — such  as  Lamb  of  God, 
icho  fakest  aicay  the  sins  of  the  v:orld,  which  is  said  again  and 
again.  The  petition.  Good  Lord  deliver  ns,  you  repeat  eight 
times  in  the  Litany  ;  while  that  other  petition —  We  beseech 
Thee  to  hear  its  good  Lord,  you  repeat  as  many  as  sixteen 
times.  And  yet,  your  writers  sometimes  charge  Catholics 
with  using  "  vain  repetitions"  in  their  oft  repeated  Oar  Fath- 
ers and  Hail  3Iarys  ! 

The  next  division  of  your  Prayer-Book  contains  ' '  Pray- 
ers and  Thanksgivings  upon  several  occasions,"  which  are 
introduced  by  the  minister  during  Morning  or  Evening  Pray- 
er.    I  find  nothing  among  them  requiring  a  special  notice. 

I  next  find  "Collects,  Epistles  and  Grospels,  to  be  used 
throughout  the  year."  The  Church  year  is  made  to  begin 
with  the  season  of  Advent,  to  which  four  Sundays  are  assign- 
ed, and  for  each  Sundaj^  a  special  Collect,  Epistle  and  Gospel 
are  appointed.  After  this  season  comes  Christmas,  and  then 
Epiphany  with  its  six  subsequent  Sundays,  and  afterwards 
Lent,  Easter,  &c.,  kc.  This  is  the  beautiful  Church  year 
which  is  so  much  lauded  by  your  clergy.  And  yet,  my 
friend,  if  you  will  open  a  Catholic  Missal,  you  will  see  at 
once  where  the  whole  system  is  borrowed  from.  Some  of 
the  Collects,  Epistles  and  Gospels,  have  been  changed  by 
transposition  or  substitution,  while  others  have  been  taken 
bodily  fi-oni  the  Missal,  and  are  precisely  the  same  as  used 
by  the  Catholics  now,  and  also  ages  before  Henry  VIII.  was 
born.  One  of  your  clergy  has  recently  published  a  work, 
entitled,  Catechisings  on  the  Collects,  in  the  preface  to  which 
he  says  :  ' '  there  can  be  nothing  more  beautiful  to  the  pious 
Christian  (when  it  is  properly  understood)  than  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  Church's  Year,  as  contained  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer.     When  connected  with  the  various  offices  of 


L  K  T  T  K  11     VIII.  l:_0 

the  Prayer-Book,  it  adapts  itself  to  every  circuiustauce  in 
life,  and  portrays  in  living  colors,  without  exception,  all  the 
leading  doctrines  and  great  truths  of  the  blessed  and  glori- 
ous Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This  is  praise  justly 
bestowed.  But  do  not  forget,  my  friend,  that  this  beautiful 
and  salutary  arrangement  is  all  borrowed  fi'om  the  Catholics, 
and  let  your  gratitude  for  the  blessing  be  returned  to  your 
real  benefactor.  You  hfive  it  at  second-hand,  despoiled,  too, 
of  many  of  its  beauties  in  a  vain  attempt  to  unprove  it,  and 
while  you  load  it  with  praises,  you  denounce  and  abuse  that 
venerable  old  Church  which  devised  it  for  the  instruction  and 
edification  of  her  children,  centuries  before  your  little  sect 
sprung  into  existence. 

Following  this  arrangement,  copied  into  your  Prayer-Book 
from  the  3Iissal,  I  come  to  the  "first  day  of  Lent,  commonly 
called  Ash- Wednesday."  You  have,  indeed,  appointed  a 
service  for  this  day,  but  with  you  it  is  no  longer  ^IsA-Wcd- 
nesday,  and  the  name  is  entii-ely  out  of  place.  As  the  Nin- 
evites  repented  in  sackcloth  and  ashes j  so  in  the  early  Church, 
persons  who  had  offended  did  penance  in  a  similar  manner. 
In  imitation  of  that  practice.  Catholics  are  accustomed  on  the 
first  day  of  Lent  to  have  their  foreheads  crossed  with  ashes, 
as  a  sign  of  humility  and  contrition.  The  priest  in  perform- 
ing this  ceremony,  says  to  each  one,  Rememher,  0  man,  that 
thou  art  dust,  and  shalt  return  to  dust  ajain  !  Hence  the 
origin  of  the  name  of  yl.s7i-Wednesday,  as  you  will  find  in 
the  Catholic  Missal.  But,  as  you  have  discarded  this  expres- 
sive and  affecting  ceremony,  why  do  you  still  retain  the  name 
to  which  it  gave  rise  ? 

Similar  remarks  might  be  made  in  regard  to  the  names  of 
several  other  festivals  which  I  find  in  your  Prayer-Book, 
such  as  Christmas,  Whit-Sunday,  e^'c.  Christmas  takes  its 
name  from  the  Mass,  which  one  of  your  articles  denounces 
in  language  almost  too  shocking  to  be  repeated.  Christmas 
is  nothing,  more  or  less,  than  a  contraction  for  Christ-Mass. 
On  that  day  3Iass  has  alwaj-s  been  said  in  the  Church  with 
special  reference  to  the  Nativity  of  Christ,  and  hence  the 
term,  Christ-Mass  or  Christmas.  You  have  abolished  and 
repudiated  the  Mass,  but  yet  retain  the  name  which  origi- 
nates from  it.  So,  though  you  have  the  festival  in  name, 
you  have  not  the  thing,  you  have  no  Christ-Mass.  The  term 
Whit-Sunday,  arose  from  the  ancient  custom  of  the  newly 
baptized  appearing  on  that  day  robed  in  u:hit€.     This  custom 


22<j  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

is  .still  observed  among  us,  and  hence  the  name  of  AVbit- 
Smiday  is  appropriate  and  significant.  But,  as  you  have 
discarded  that  custom,  the  name  is  wholly  without  meaning, 
and  out  of  place  among  you. 

Passing  over  the  Sundays  and  principal  festivals  of  the 
year,  as  laid  down  in  your  Prayer-Book,  I  am  brought  next 
to  thos3  services  prescribed  for  the  Saint's  Days.  I  find  that 
these  begin  with  St.  Andrew,  the  Apostle,  in  imitation  of  the 
Roman  Missal.  I  find,  also,  on  comparison,  that  you  have 
adopted  the  very  same  Epistle  and  Gospel  for  this  day,  that 
is  prescribed  in  the  Catholic  Church — so,  also,  in  your  ser- 
vice for  St.  Thomas'  day,  &c.,  &c.  Thus,  you  not  only  cele- 
brate Saints'  Days  after  the  example  of  Catholics,  but  you  have 
copied  our  very  services  entire.  It  is  true,  you  have  left  out 
many  such  days  observed  by  us,  as  those  of  St.  Timothy, 
St.  Polycarp,  St.  xignes,  St.  Hilary,  and  others  "whose 
names  are  in  the  Book  of  Life."  Upon  what  principle  you 
have  left  them  out  I  know  not.  It  cannot  be  upon  the  plea 
of  commemorating  only  the  Apostles  or  inspired  men :  for 
you  have  the  Innocents'  Day,  in  which  you  celebrate  the  chil- 
dren so  ruthlessly  massacred  by  King  Herod,  and  you  have 
All  Saints'  Day,  which  is  certainly  pretty  comprehensive. 
The  last  named  festival  makes  some  amends,  perhaps,  for 
your  want  of  a  special  service  in  commemoration  of  those 
named  in  the  Roman  Missal,  But  as  you  commemorate 
"All  Saints"  in  mass,  you  will  hardly  be  so  inconsistent  as 
to  censure  the  Catholic  for  commemorating  some  of  them  in 
a  more  special  manner.* 

Among  the  Holy  Days,  for  which  your  Prayer-Book  has 
provided  special  services,  I  am  happy  to  find  at  least  two  in 
honor  of  the  Mother  of  God — viz:  The  festivals  of  the 
Purification  &Mdi  Annunciation.  On  both  occasions,  the  j^or- 
tions  of  Scripture  selected  for  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  are,  as 
usual,  the  same  as  those  prescribed  in  the  Missal.  I  find 
also  there,  the  festival  of  St.  Micliael  and  All  Angels,  for  which 
you  have  copied  the  Gospel  and  the  Collect  from  the  Mis- 
sal.    Of  the  Collect  which  you  use  on  this  festival,  I  have 

*Tlie  festival  of  "All  Saints"  was  instituted  at  Rome  by  Pope  Gre- 
gory III.,  in  the  eighth  century.  Episcopalians,  therefore,  cannot  pre- 
tend that  they  have  borro\Yed  it  from  the  "primitive  Church."  It  is 
truly  and  literally  a  "Romish"  and  "Popish"  festival.  But  there  it 
is  in  your  Prayer-Book,  although  few  of  your  ministers,  or  people, 
pay  any  regard  to  it. 


L  K  T  T  K  R     \- 1  I  r .  227 

already  spoken  in  a  previous  letter,  as  containing  a  prayer 
that  the  angels  may  "succour  and  defend  us."  I  say  it  is 
pleasant  to  find  such  services  in  your  Praycr-Book,  and  I 
know  of  but  one  or  two  tilings  to  be  regretted  in  connection 
with  the  subject ;  first,  that  while  you  were  copying  so  largely 
from  our  ^lis.sal,  you  did  not  take  these  services  whole  and 
entire,  instead  of  inutihiting  and  emasculating  them  as  you 
have  done,  and  secondly,  that  although  you  have  tliese  festi- 
vals in  your  Prayer-Book,  they  should  be  so  rarely  observed 
in  your  congregations  as  to  be  almost  utterly  unkno^vn  to  the 
mass  of  your  people. 

The  next  division  of  your  Praycr-Book  consists  of  the  Com- 
munion Ser^'ice,  which  is  entited.  The  order  for  the  adininis- 
tration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  or  Holy  Communion. 

This  service,  too,  was  in  a  great  measure  compiled  from 
the  Pvoman  Missal.  Indeed,  it  may  be  termed  little  else  than 
an  adaptation  of  the  Mass  to  Protestant  use — by  means  of 
alterations,  omissions  and  additions.  In  support  of  this  as- 
sertion, I  can  appeal  to  the  testmiony  of  yowv  own  historian. 
Bishop  Short,  who,  speaking  of  its  first  introduction  as  a 
substitute  for  the  3Ia.ss,  says:  "  In  its  composition,  Cranmer 
appears  to  have  made  no  unnecessary  alterations,  but  to  have 
retained  whatever  was  innocent  in  the  service  of  the  Mass^ 
(§  309.)  Here  then  you  have  its  origin — the  service  of  the 
Mass.  Yet.  no  portion  of  your  Prayer-Book  has  been  more 
highly  extolled  than  this  !  Enjoy  it,  and  be  grateful ;  only 
remember  the  adage,   "  Honor  to  whom  honor  is  due." 

This  service  commences  with  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  a  Col- 
lect, after  which  the  minister  recites  the  decalogue,  and  the  peo- 
ple in  response  after  each  commandment  invoke  God's  mercy. 
The  decalogue  was  not  in  the  Communion  Service  as  first  put 
forth  by  Cranmer,  but  introduced  at  a  revision  made  a  few 
years  after.  It  may  be  well  to  make  a  few  remarks  in  pass- 
ing, upon  one  or  two  of  these  commandments.  Your  second 
commandment  is  often  quoted  as  if  condemnatory  of  certain 
Catholic  practices.  You  translate  it  thus — "  Thou  shalt  not 
make  to  thyself  any  graven  image,  nor  the  likeness  of  any 
thing  in  heaven  above,  nor  in  the  earth  beneath,  nor  in  the 
water  under  the  earth.  Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  to  them, 
nor  worship  them."  Now,  you  will  certainly  agree  with  me, 
that  this  prohibition  is  not  to  be  taken  literally  ;  since  Pro- 
testants make  images,  statues  and  pictures,  and  keep  them 
in  their  houses,  and  sometimes  even  in  their  Churches.  Since 
20* 


228  LETTERS     TO     AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 

then,  it  is  not  to  be  taken  literally,  it  becomes  a  question  of 
interpretation  as  to  what  sense  shall  be  put  upon  it.  The 
most  that  you  can  allege  is,  that  it  prohibits  the  ^rorship  of 
images.  Admitting  this  to  be  true,  the  question  then  re- 
mains;, what  is  meant  by  the  icorsJiip  of  images.  If  you 
mean  worship  in  its  supreme  and  highest  sense,  the  Catholic 
will  agree  with  you,  for  he  never  worships  an  image  in  that 
sense.  But  if  you  say  it  prohibits  even  a  lower  kind  of  wor- 
ship— a  mere  religious  respect  or  veneration  paid  to  an  image, 
I  must  there  join  issue  with  you.  Whatever  you  may  think,, 
the  Catholic  believes  that  an  image  or  picture  of  our  Re- 
deemer, as  a  representation  of  his  sacred  person,  is  worthy  of 
some  respect  and  religious  veneration.  Accordingly,  he  pays 
it  due  homage  ;  and,  in  so  doing,  believes  that  he  honors  the 
divine  original.  But  while  he  believes  that  the  image  is 
worthy  of  a  certain  degree  of  veneration,  out  of  regard  for 
the  divine  being  whom  it  rejjresents,  yet  he  does  not  believe 
that  it  possesses  any  power  or  divinity,  nor  does  he  ask  or 
expect  any  thing  from  it.  If  you  still  insist  that  even  this 
religious  veneration  is  forbidden  by  this  commandment,  my 
limits  will  not  jDcrmit  me  to  protract  the  discussion,  and  I 
can  only  oppose  to  your  modern  individual  interpretation  the 
practice  and  avithority  of  the  Catholic  Church  from  the  early 
ages. 

Having  shown  you  how  I  reconcile  Catholic  practice  with 
your  second  commandment,  will  you  oblige  me  by  showing 
me  how  you  reconcile  your  practice  with  the  fourth  command- 
ment, which  runs  thus — "Remember  that  thou  keep  holy 
the  Sabbath  day.  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor  and  do  all  thou 
hast  to  do.  But  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord 
thy  God.  In  it  thou  shalt  do  no  manner  of  work,"  &c. 
Now,  the  "  seventh  day,"  you  well  know,  is  Saturday.  Do 
you  keep  Saturday  holy  ?  Do  you  abstain  from  work  on  that 
day  ?  Not  at  all.  You  do  not  pretend  to  observe  Saturday 
as  a  holy  day.  You  leave  that  to  the  Jews.  Yet  the  com- 
mand of  God  is  explicit  and  positive  to  keep  that  day  holy, 
and  to  do  no  manner  of  work  upon  it.  Now  tell  me  why 
you  violate  this  imperative  command  every  week  of  your  life. 
As  that  day  was  "  hallowed"  and  set  apart  to  be  kept  "  holy" 
by  divine  authority,  it  is  manifest  that  nothing  less  than  the 
same  or  equal  authority  could  annul  or  change  it.  And  yet 
you  have  changed  it — by  observing  the  first  day  of  the  week 
instead  of  the  seventh.     Where  do  you  find  divine  authority 


LETTER     VIII.  229 

for  this  change  '!  You  profess  to  follow  the  Bible.  Here  is 
a  positive  couiiuaiul  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  your  min- 
isters rehearse  every  Sunday.  Is  it  repealed  in  any  part  of 
the  New  Testament  'i  As  the  command  given  in  the  Old  is 
clear  and  positive,  the  repeal,  if  any,  must  be  equally  clear 
and  positive.  Inferences  and  interpretations  will  not  do.  Can 
you  turn  to  any  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which  clearly 
repeals  that  old  command  ?  You  cannot  find  any  such  pas- 
sage. Con.sequeutly,  if  you  go  by  the  Bible  only,  you  should 
keep  the  Jewish  Sabbath  (Saturday)  and  not  the  Christian.s' 
Sunday.  The  only  ground  for  the  change,  is  Catholic  tra- 
dition and  Catholic  authority.  If  you  reject  these,  you  must, 
if  consistent,  obey  the  fourth  commandment  literally,  and 
keep  the  .seventh  day  holy,  like  the  Seventh-Day  Baptists. 

After  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  English  Prayer-Book 
contains  prayers  for  the  king,  and  the  Nicene  Creed.  These 
are  omitted  in  your  book.  Nest  I  find  certain  Bubrics,  and 
among  them  one  ordering  the  minister  to  declare  to  the  peo- 
ple "  what  Iloly-days  or  Fasting-days  are  in  the  week  follow- 
ing to  be  ob.scrved."  I  need  not  tell  you  that  comparatively 
few  of  your  clergy  comply  Avith  this  regulation.  Indeed, 
many  of  your  congregations  would  be  not  a  little  astonished 
were  the  minister  to  announce  that  on  such  a  day  in  the  follow- 
ing week,  would  occur  the  festival  of  the  "Purification  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,"  or  that  of  "St.  Michael  and  all  Angels." 

After  the  Oifertor}-,  I  find  a  prayer  for  the  "  whole  state  of 
Christ's  Church  militant,"  wherein  you  pray  God  to  "inspire 
continually  the  Universal  Church  with  the  spirit  of  truth, 
imity  and  concord."  This  phrase,  the  "Universal  Church," 
occurs  frequently  in  your  Prayer-Book,  and  I  have  already 
noticed  it  once  before.  It  is  hard  to  tell  what  meaning  you 
attach  to  this  phrase — it  probably  has  as  many  interpretations 
as  there  are  Church-parties  among  you.  But  if  you  mean 
that  imaginary  Church,  made  up  of  "independent  branches," 
certainly  you  have  need  to  pray  that  it  may  have  ' '  unity  and 
concord." 

This  prayer  is  followed  by  an  "Exhortation,"  which  the 
minister  is  to  read  when  he  gives  notice  of  the  Communion, 
in  which  he  .says:  "If  there  be  any  of  you,  who,  by  these 
means  cannot  quiet  his  own  conscience  herein,  but  requireth 
further  comfort  or  counsel,  let  him  come  to  me,  or  to  some 
other  minister  of  God's  word,  and  open  his  grief  that  he  may 


230  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

receive  such  godly  counsel  and  advice,"  &c.  Here  we  have 
something  very  much  resembling  a  certain  Catholic  practice 
called  confession.  This  resemblance  is  not  only  stronger,  as 
it  reads  in  the  English  Prayer-Book,  but  it  actually  amounts 
to  the  very  same  thing.  I  find  there,  the  following  words : 
"  That  by  the  ministry  of  God's  holy  Word,  he  may  receive 
the  benefit  of  Absolution."  Your  American  7-eformers  en- 
tirely expunged  this  clause.  They  evidently  had  a  great  hor- 
ror of  Absolution. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  notice  all  the  details  of  your 
Communion  Service.  I  therefore  pass  on  to  the  prayer  ofi'ered 
by  the  minister,  before  the  consecration.  In  this  prayer,  he 
says:  "  Grrant  us,  therefore,  gracious  Lord,  so  to  cat  the  flesh 
of  thy  dear  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  drink  Hislilood,  that 
our  sinful  bodies  may  be  made  clean  by  his  body,  and  our 
souls  washed  by  His  most  precious  blood,  and  that  we  may 
evermore  dwell  in  Him,  and  He  in  us."  Interj^reting  this 
language  in  its  natural  and  obvious  sense,  we  should  infer 
that  you  believe  in  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  The  prayer  of  consecration  contains  similar  language : 
thus  it  reads  :  ' '  Vouchsafe  to  bless  and  sanctify  with  thy  word 
and  Holy  Spirit,  these  thy  gifts  and  creatures  of  bread  and 
wine ;  that  we,  receiving  them  according  to  thy  Son,  our 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ's  holy  institution,  in  remembrance  of 
his  death  and  passion,  may  be  partakers  of  his  most  blessed 
Body  and  Blood.  *  *  *  That  we  and  all  others  who  shall 
be  partakers  of  this  holy  communion,  may  worthily  receive 
the  most  precious  Body  and  Blood  of  thy  Son  Jesus  Christ." 
And  afterwards,  when  the  minister  delivers  the  communion, 
he  says  :  "  The  Body  of  our  Loi'd  Jesus  Christ,  which  was 
given  for  thee,  preserve  thy  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting 
life."  These  are  the  very  M^ords,  or  rather  a  translation  of 
the  very  words  used  by  the  Catholic  priest  when  he  delivers 
the  communion.  Such  language  plainly  teaches  that  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  truly  received  in  the  commu- 
nion. And  yet  that  doctrine  is  rejected  by  most  of  your 
clergy  and  people,  if  it  be  not  contradicted  by  other  parts  of 
your  Prayer-Book.  This,  however,  is  one  of  the  many  dis- 
puted points  among  your  bishops  and  clergy.  Some  of  them, 
by  far  the  smaller  portion,  are  disposed  to  adhere  to  a  strict 
interpretation  of  this  language,  and  profess  to  believe  in 
the  real  presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  at  least 


L  E  T  T  E  U     V  1 1  I  .  .  231 

in  some  vague  and  incouiprelicnsible  manner.*  Others  in- 
terpreting the  language  more  loosely,  reject  this  idea,  and 
look  upon  the  elements  as  only  the  emblems  and  memo- 
rials of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  Thus,  there  is  no 
unity  among  your  pastors  upon  this  great  (jucstiou,  and  of 
course  there  is  no  unity  among  the  people.  Putting  the 
different  parts  of  your  Prayer-Book  together,  especially  the 
English  book,  I  must  say  that  the  trumpet  of  your  Church 
gives  a  very  uucertahi  sound,  and  I  am  not  surprised  that  it 
gives  rise  to  parties,  and  endless  dissensions,  and  wranglings 
among  you.  The  truth  is,  your  Communion  Service,  like 
other  portions  of  your  Prayer-Book,  was  composed  on  the 
principle  of  compromise  or  accommodation.  Its  authors  did 
not  dare  to  cast  aside  altogether  the  old  Catholic  liturgy  and 
ritual,  so  they  retained  certain  parts,  made  various  altera- 
tions and  additions.  The  result  is  a  wretched  piece  of  patch- 
work, destitute  alike  of  consi.stence,  unity,  and  clearness, 
puzzling  equally  clergy  and  laity,  and  involving  them  all  in 
a  pei'petual  family  jar.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  compose  these 
differences — they  have  existed  for  three  hundred  years,  and 
will  continue  to  exist  as  long  as  the  Prayer-Book  shall  be 
used.  But  every  impartial  reader  of  your  Communion  Ser- 
vice must  perceive,  tliat  its  language  is  entirely  too  strong 
for  the  ordinary  Pmtestant  idea  upon  the  subject.  How  can 
your  minister  when  he  gives  the  Communion,  say,  Tlie  Body 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  that  which  he  offers  is  only 
bread  ?    Is  not  such  language  untruthful  ?    Is  it  not  a  solemn 

*Many  distinguished  divines  of  the  Church  of  England  have  held 
and  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  in  the  strongest  language. 
The  reader  will  probably  rememljcr  the  celebrated  sermon  of  Dr.  Puscy 
upon  the  subject,  which  caused  such  a  sensation  in  the  Protestant 
world  a  few  years  ago.  I  have  a  copy  of  that  sermon  now  before  me. 
The  author  has  furnished  it  with  an  Appendix,  containing  extracts  from 
Anglican  divines,  in  support  of  his  views.  I  shall  select  two  or  three 
of  these  extracts  as  spetimeus.  Archbishop  Laud  is  quoted  thus  : 
"  As  for  the  Church  of  England,  nothing  is  more  plain  thatl  that  it 
believes  the  true  a4id  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist."  Bishop 
Forbes  says:  "The  doctrine  of  these  Protestants  and  other's,  seems 
most  safe  and  true  who  are  of  ojiinion,  nay,  most  firmly  believe,  that 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly,  really  and  substantially  pre- 
sent in  the  Eucharist,  and  received  but  in  a  manner  incomi)rehensiblc 
in  respect  to  human  reason,"  &c.  Dr.  Puse}-  cites  to  the  same  pur- 
port, Bishops  Bramhall,  Cosin,  Sparrow,  Taylor,  Ken,  Hackctt,  Bevc- 
ridge,  Bull,  &c.  &c. 


232  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

mockery  ?  *  I  am  sure  nothing  but  custom  prevents  you  from 
being  shocked  by  it.* 

One  of  your  clergy,  Mr.  Kip,  (now  one  of  your  bishops,) 
asserts  that  your  Communion  Service  is  taken  from  the  an- 
cient liturgies,  and  that  it  is  in  accordance  with  them.  He 
points  out,  it  is  true,  certain  parts  which  may  be  found  in 
the  ancient  liturgies,  as  well  as  in  the  service  of  the  Mass  ; 
the  latter  being  nothing  more  or  less  than  one  of  these  an- 
cient liturgies.  But  a  formulary  may  possess  various  points 
of  similarity  to  another  document  of  the  sort,  and  yet  not  be 
strictly  in  agreement  with  it ;  for  there  may  be  material 
omissions  and  deviations.  This  is  the  case  with  your  Com- 
munion service,  compared  with  the  ancient  liturgies.  In- 
deed, Mr.  Kip  is  compelled  to  admit  a  deviation  in  one 
important  particular,  although  so  anxious  to  establish  ' '  a 
striking  resemblance."  Thus,  he  gives  the  arrangement  of 
the  ancient  liturgies  of  St.  Peter,  St.  James,  St.  Mark  and 
St.  John,  under  eleven  distinct  heads.  In  all  these  liturgies, 
the  seventh  head  \&  Prayers  for  the  dead.  (^Double  Witness, 
p.  166.)  These  prayers,  I  need  not  say,  have  been  left  out 
of  your  service.  So  far,  it  differs  fi-om  the  Catholic  service 
and  the  ancient  liturgies.  Mr.  Kip,  unable  to  deny  this  dis- 
crepancy altogether,  endeavors  to  show  that  it  does  not 
amount  to  much.  Up  says,  "these  Prayers  for  the  dead 
bear  no  resemblance  whatever  to  those  now  used  in  the  Ro- 
mish Church;"  that  they  were  rather  "a  commemoration  of 
the  departed  faithful."  Upon  this  extraordinary  assertion, 
I  remark  first,  that,  admitting  this  account  to  be  correct, 
since  your  Communion  Service  contains  no  such  commemo- 
ration, it  so  far  departs  from  the  ancient  liturgies,  while  the 
canon  of  the  Mass  adheres  to  them.  But  in  the  second 
place,  I  am  compelled  to  deny  the  correctness  of  this  asser- 
tion.    I  can  show  you  that  the  ancient  liturgies  contained 

*It  is  a  significant  fact  that  these  words,  taken  from  the  Mass,  were 
left  out  of  the  Communion  Service  when  it  was  revised  under  Edward 
VI.,  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  Bucer  and  others.  They 
were  subsequently  restored  at  the  revision  which  took  place  by  order 
of  Queen  Elizabeth.  I  would  add,  also,  that  neither  the  oblation  nor 
invocation  found  in  the  American  book,  is  contained  in  the  English. 
They  were  both  thrown  out  of  the  second  book  of -Edward  VI.,  and 
have  not  yet  been  restored  in  England. 

These  changes  must  be  added  to  the  hundred  others  which  consti- 
tute the  variations  of  the  Prayer-Boole,  and  which  serve  to  prove  the 
want  of  harmony  in  the  doctrines  of  i-ts  compilers.' 


L  E  T  T  E  U     V  1 1 1  .  233 

the  strongest  sort  of  prayers  for  the  dead,  just  as  strong  as 
any  now  used  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Thus,  the  liturgy  of 
St.  James  contains  this  prayer — "  Be  mindful  of  all  whom 
we  commemorate,  who  are  gone  out  of  tliis  life  in  the  ortho- 
dox faith ;  grant  rest  to  their  souls,  bodies  and  spirits  ;  de- 
liver tlicm  from  the  infinite  damnation  to  comc,''^  &c.  This 
is  the  most  ancient  of  all  the  liturgies ;  and  yet  here  is  a 
prayer,  which  I  may  say  is  even  stronger  than  is  now  found 
in  Catholic  services. 

In  this  particular,  the  Prayer-Book,  as  it  first  appeared 
under  Edward  VI.,  agreed  with  the  CathoUc  Missal.  It 
contained,  in  the  Communion  service,  the  following  prayer 
for  the  dead:  "We  commend  unto  thy  mercy,  O  Lord,  all 
other  thy  servants,  which  are  departed  hence  fi-om  us  with 
the  sign  of  faith,  and  now  do  rest  in  the  sleep  of  peace ; 
grant  unto  them,  we  beseech  thee,  thy  mercy  and  everlasting 
peace."  (See  Dr.  Cardwell's  Tno  Boohs  of  Common  Prayer 
Comjxircd.')  As  I  have  stated  in  another  place,  this  prayer, 
which  is  found  in  all  the  ancient  liturgies,  wa.s  expunged 
from  the  Prayer-Book  at  the  revision  in  1551,  together  with 
one  in  commemoration  of  the  saints,  and  especially  the 
"  glorious  and  most  blessed  Virgin  Mary."  Here,  then,  are 
two  more  instances  in  which  your  present  Prayer-Book  not 
only  vai'ies  from  what  it  was  originally,  but  from  the  litur- 
gies of  the   "  Primitive  Church." 

But  there  is  another  important  point  in  which  your  service 
difi'ers  fi-om  the  ancient  liturgies,  but  strangely  overlooked 
by  Mr.  Kip.  I  refer  to  the  absence  of  an  explicit  recogni- 
tion of  an  actual  change  in  tlie  elements.  I  need  not  tell 
you  that  this  recognition  is  coiitained  in  the  service  of  the 
Mass,  which,  indeed,  is  only  the  ancient  liturgy  of  St.  Peter, 
commonly  called  the  Roman  liturgy.  And  this  doctrine, 
being  found  in  that  liturgy,  is  found  also  in  the  other  ancient 
liturgies ;  for  they  all  agree  in  doctrine,  and  almost  in  lan- 
guage. Your  service  contains,  as  I  have  stated,  some  very 
strong  language  concerning  the  presence  and  receiving  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  Indeed,  your  Communion  Ser- 
vice is  more  Catholic  than  that  of  the  English  book  ;  for  at 
the  American  revisal,  the  oblation  and  invocation  were  re- 
stored to  the  service,  which  had  been  omitted  in  one  of  the 
many  English  revisions.  But  still  your  service  falls  short  of 
the  old  liturgies  in  the  point  which  I  have  named,  and 
which  you  will  better  understand  when  I  set  before  yoU  the 


'234  LETTEKS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

very  language  omitted.  In  the  liturgy  of  St.  James,  you 
will  find  this  invocation  thus  expressed — ','  Send  thy  Holy 
Spirit,  *  *  *  that  coming  he  maij  make  this  bread  the  life- 
giving  body,  the  saving  body,  the  heavenly  body,  the  bod}' 
giving  health  to  souls  and  bodies,  the  hody  of  our  Lord,  God 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  eter- 
nal life  to  those  who  receive  it:  Amen.  And  may  make 
what  is  mixed  in  this  chalice,  the  blood  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  saving  blood,  the  life-giving  blood,  the  heavenly 
blood,  the  blood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 
The  liturgy  of  St.  James,  from  which  this  extract  is  taken, 
as  I  have  already  remarked,  is  one  of  the  oldest  of  the  an- 
cient liturgies.  Mr.  Kip  himself,  maintains  very  correctly 
that  it  must  be  at  least  fourteen  hundred  years  old.  (Ibid, 
p.  169.)  It  ought,  therefore,  to  be  sufficient  to  set  before 
you  an  extract  from  that  liturgy,  especially  since  there  is  a 
great  sameness  or  uniformity  in  all  these  old  liturgies,  show- 
ing that  they  must  have  had  one  common  Apostolic  origin. 
But  I  will  give  you  also  an  extract  from  the  invocation  found 
in  the  liturgy  of  St.  Mark — "  Send  down  upon  us,  and  upon 
this  bread  and  this  chalice,  thy  Holy  Spirit,  that  he  may 
sanctify  and  consecrate  them,  as  God  Almighty  ;  and  may 
mahe  the  bread  indeed  the  Body,  and  the  chalice  the  Blood  of 
the  New  Testament  of  the  very  Lord  and  God  and  Savionr, 
and  our  Sovereign  King,  Jesus  Christ.^'  In  this  extract  you 
have  not  only  the  same  sentiment,  but  almost  the  very  same 
language  contained  in  the  extract  from  St.  Peter's  liturgy. 
It  would  be  easy  to  give  you  similar  extracts  from  several 
other  liturgies ;  but  these  are  enough.  Now  I  beg  you  to 
notice  those  sentences  in  the  above  extracts  which  are  printed 
iu  italics.  You  will  observe  that  these  sentences  contain  a 
direct  prayer  that  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  may  be 
made  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  plainly  implying  that  great 
miraculous  change  which  is  designated  by  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  Transubstantiation.  Now  you  will  search  your  own 
Communion  service  in  vain  for  these  words.  You  will  find 
there  a  form  of  invocation  resembling  somewhat  the  invoca- 
tion of  the  old  liturgies ;  but  the  words  to  which  I  refer,  you 
will  not  find.  The  nearest  approach  to  them^  is  in  this  sen- 
tence— "  Vouchsafe  to  bless  and  sanctify  with  thy  Word  and 
Holy  Spirit  these  thy  gifts  and  creatures  of  bread  and  wine, 
that  we,  receiving  them  according  to  thy  Son  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ's  holy  institution,  in  remembrance  of  his  death 


LETTEK     VIII.  235 

and  passion,  may  be  partakers  of  his  blessed  Body  and 
Blood."  Here  you  do,  indeed,  pray  that  God  may  "bless 
and  sanctify  the  bread  and  wine,"  and  that  in  rcceivinpr  them, 
you  may  be  "  partakers  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;" 
but  you  do  not,  like  the  ancient  liturgies,  pray  God  to  make 
the  bread  and  wine  the  Bodij  and  Blood  of  Christ.'"  This  is 
a  great  and  important  difference.  Now,  if  the  compilers  of 
yoiu"  htm'gy  took  these  ancient  liturgies  for  their  model,  as 
3-our  wi'iters  allege,  why  does  not  your  service  contain  the 
important  words  which  I  have  quoted  from  these  ancient  lit- 
urgies ?  The  reason  is  obvious :  these  words  teach  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine  of  Transubstautiation,  which  the  authors  of 
the  Px-ayer-Book  had  rqiected ;  and  in  composing  the  Com- 
munion service,  as  in  other  parts  of  the  Prayer-Book,  they 
took  just  so  much  of  the  old  service  as  suited  their  views. 
But  although  they  have  left  out  the  most  material  portions  of 
the  old  service,  yet  what  they  have  retained,  is,  as  I  have 
shown,  too  strong  for  the  low  views  which  generally  prevail 
among  you  upon  the  subject.  It  cannot  be  received  in  its 
natural  and  obvious  sense,  but  has  to  be  explained  or  taken 
figuratively,  in  order  to  accommodate  it  to  your  notions. 
So  much  for  your  professions  of  antiquity.* 

There  is  yet  another  important  point  in  which  your  Com- 
munion Service  departs  from  the  ancient  liturgies,  and,  of 
course,  from  the  canon  of  the  Mass,  which  is  but  one  of  these 
liturgies — the  one  ascribed  to  St.  Peter.  I  refer  to  the  doc- 
trine of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  This  doctrine,  which  is  one 
of  the  great  points  of  difference  between  you  and  us,  is  con- 
tained in  all  these  ancient  liturgies.  I  will  give  you  a  few 
specimens.  In  the  liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom,  which  is  used 
by  the  Greeks  and  Russians,  the  priest  prays  "  that  our  sa- 
crijice  may  be  acceptable  to  thee;"  and  that  "  it  may  be  to 
those  who  receive  it,  available  to  sobriety  of  soul,  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins.'"  The  liturgy  of  St.  James  is  still  more  full 
and  explicit.     Thus :   ' '  "We  offer  to  thee,  0  Lord,  this  tre- 

*In  the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.,  the  Communion  Service 
contained  this  praj-er — "Bless  and  sanctify  these  thy  gifts  and  crea- 
tures of  bread  and  wine,  that  they  niaybe  unto  us  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  thy  most  dearly  beloved  Son  Jesus  Christ."  In  the  revision  of  1551, 
these  words  were  left  out.  The  first  half  of  them  was  restored  in  the 
American  Prayer-Book ;  but  the  other  half  was  too  strong,  too  much 
like  Transubstaniiation,  for  even  your  High  Church  divines  to  venture 
to  adopt  them  again . 

21 


236  LETTERS     TO     AN     En&COPALIAN. 

meudous  and  unbloody  sacrifice,  for  tby  holy  places,"  &c. 
"  Grant  thy  blessing,  0  Lord,  again  and  again,  through  this 
holy  oblation  and  lyvopitlatoni  sacrifice  which  is  ofiered  to 
God,  the  Father." 

Do  you  find  anything  in  your  Communion  Service  like 
this?  By  no  means.  The  nearest  approach  to  it,  is  in  these 
words — "We  celebrate  and  make  here  with  these  thy  holy 
gifts,  which  we  now  ofier  unto  thee,  the  memorial  thy  Son 
has  commanded  us  to  make."  Thus  it  is  only  a  "  memorial," 
and  not  a  sacrifice,  and  still  less  a  ^rrojnticdory  sacrifice, 
as  it  is  expressly  called  in  the  ancient  liturgy  of  St.  James. 
Here  again,  I  ask,  if  the  authors  of  your  Prayer-Book 
followed  the  ancient  liturgies  of  the  "  Primitiye  Church," 
as  alleged,  why  are  not  the  passages  quoted  above,  con- 
tained in  it?"  It  is  evident,  if  they  followed  them  at  all, 
it  must  have  been  very  far  ojf.-'^  But,  in  truth,  I  suspect 
they  had  nothing  to  do  with  them.  I  have  already  shown, 
from  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Short,  that  they  compiled 
it  from  the  service  of  the  Mass  then  in  use ;  and  that  is 
doubtless  the  only  ancient  liturgy  that  they  consulted,  and 
fjtcd  they  so  altered,  mutilated,  and  patched  with  their  own 
crude  inventions,  as  to  destroy  its  identity  with  the  original. f 
I  have  shown  you,  by  citations  from  the  ancient  liturgies, 
that  the  early  Church  regarded  the  Eucharist  as  a  propitia- 
tory sacrifice — a  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the  dead — avail- 
ing for  the  remission  of  sins.  But  behold  your  antagonism 
to  the  early  Church  in  this  respect.  One  of  your  Thirty- 
Nine  Articles  denounces  this  doctrine  as  a  "  blasphemous  fa- 
ble and  dangerous  deceit."     (Art.  31.)     And   yet  men — 

*  The  reader,  ^vho  may  not  be  able  to  verify  my  quotations  from 
the  ancient  liturgies,  will  find  sufficient  evidence  upon  these  points  by 
referring  to  a  ■work  entitled  A  Compendium  of  Christian  Antiquities, 
by  Rev.  C.  S.  Henry,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  denomination.  See 
his  account  of  the  ancient  Communion  Service,  pp.  190,  191. 

■j"  The  alterations  made  in  j-our  Communion  Service  are  ascribed  by 
the  Rev.  John  Keble,  a  distinguished  clergyman  of  the  Anglican  fold, 
to  "indefinite  fear  of  interpolation  in  the  early  liturgies" — a  subject, 
he  adds,  which  since  that  time  has  been  "happily  and  satisfactorily 
cleared  up."  [Preface  to  Ilooher^s  Works,  p.  31.)  He  also  admits 
that  the  advocates  of  Anglicanism,  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  from  the  same  groundless  fear,  ' '  carefully  shunned  an  un- 
reserved appeal  to  Christian  antiquity."  Whether  they  really  enter- 
tained such  a  fear,  may  admit  of  question  ;  but  the  fact  that  they  thus 
refused  to  be  guided  by  the  ancient  liturgies  and  fathers,  is  very  im- 
portant, and  we  are  happy  to  find  Mr.  Keble  candid  enough  to  admit. 


LETTER      VIII 


•237 


educated,  intelligent  men — have  grown  up  Avitli  the  idea  tliat 
the  Prajer-Book  is  framed  after  the  model  of  the  Prin»itive 
Church  I     Was  there  ever  a  greater  delusion  ! 

lu  every  age  of  the  world,  the  Supreme  Being  has  heeu 
worshipped  by  sacrifice.  Under  the  Patriarchal  dispensation 
it  prevailed,  and  also  under  the  Mosaic.  It  is  certainly  the 
highest  act  of  homage  that  man  can  pay  to  his  (creator ;  and 
a  religion  without  a  sacrifice,  is  an  anomaly  in  the  world. 
That  this  mode  of  worshipping  God  was  not  to  cease  after  the 
great  expiation  on  Calvary,  is  evident  from  that  passage  in 
the  Book  of  Malachi — "From  the  rising  of  the  sun  even 
unto  the  going  down  of  the  same,  my  name  shall  be  great 
among  the  Gentiles;  and  in  eicry jyJacc  incense  shall  he  of- 
fered unto  mij  name,  and  a  pure  offerinrj  :  for  my  name  shall 
be  great  among  the  heathen,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts." 
You  are  familiar  with  this  passage,  it  being  one  of  the  •'  sen- 
tences of  Scripture"'  with  which  your  ' '  Fleming  Prayer" 
opens.  It  plainly  predicts  the  general  use  of  incense  in  the 
Christian  Church,  and  also  a  pure  ofiering  or  sacrifice. 
That  incense  was  used  in  the  early  Church,  is  evident  from 
the  Apostolical  canons  and  other  ancient  writings.  That  the 
early  Church  had  a  ' '  pure  offering" — the  holy  sacrifice  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ — is  evident  from  the  quota- 
tions which  I  have  produced  from  the  ancient  liturgies. 
Thus,  then,  was  this  prediction  of  Malachi  fulfilled  in  early 
times.  Behold,  likewise,  its  continued  fulfilment  in  our  own 
day,  in  the  Catholic  worship,  which  in  every  place  celebrates 
the  Holy  Mysteries  with  "incense  and  a  pure  offering."' 
Here  again,  I  might  ask,  on  whose  side  is  the  Bible?  You 
have  rejected  the  use  of  incense,  and  have  denounced  the 
Sacrifice  of  the  IMass  in  the  face  of  the  Catholic  world,  an- 
cient and  modern.  Yet  you  profess  to  \vaxq  priests.  Every- 
where in  your  Prayer-Book,  I  find  a  rubric  ordering  the 
"priest"  to  do  this  or  that.  How  can  there  be  a  priest 
without  a  sacrifice  ?  The  former  necessarily  implies  the 
latter.  A  priest  without  a  sacrifice  is  an  anomaly,  a  pal- 
pable contradiction.  Here  is  another  inconsistency  in  your 
Prayer-Book.  You  feel  it  to  be  an  inconsistency,  and 
plainly  acknowledge  it  in  your  ordinary  language.  You 
never  apply  the  term  priest  to  your  clergy  when  speaking  of 
them.  You  say,  "  there  is  our  mniister"  or  "  pastor,"  but 
not  priest.  This  shows  that  the  language  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  is  felt  to  be  not  correct,  not  true. 


238  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

There  are  other  points  connected  with  this  subject  upon 
which  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  remarks,  but  my  limits  will 
not  permit  it,  and  I  must  proceed  with  my  review.  But,  let 
me  first  ask  your  attention  for  a  moment,  to  the  rubric  at  the 
end  of  your  Communion  Service.  The  rubric  orders  that, 
' '  if  any  of  the  consecrated  Bread  and  Wine  remain  after  the 
Communion,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church,  but 
the  minister  and  other  communicants  shall,  immediately  after 
the  blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same."  I  cite  this 
rubric,  in  the  first  place,  to  show  you  the  utter  inconsistency 
of  this  language  with  that  used  in  the  service,  especially  as 
understood  by  High  Churchmen.  It  is  repeatedly  spoken  of 
as  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  particularly  when  the  min- 
ister delivers  it  to  the  Communicants.  But,  in  this  rubric,  it 
is  called  only  "Bread  and  Wine."  This  shows,  that  with 
your  compilers,  all  the  strong  language  of  the  ser^'ice,  lan- 
guage such  as  the  Catholic  uses,  is  words  and  nothing  more — 
vox  ct  2)rcvterea  nihil.  If  they  retained  in  some  degree  the  old 
forms,  the  power  was  gone,  the  idea  was  no  longer  in  their 
heads  nor  in  their  hearts.  But,  in  the  second  place,  I  have 
cited  this  rubric  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  that  it  pro- 
hibits what  is  left  to  "  be  carried  out  of  the  Church."  This 
prohibition  prevents  among  you,  that  beautiful  practice  which 
prevailed  in  the  ancient  Church,  and  still  prevails  in  the  Ca- 
tholic Church,  of  carrying  the  Communion  from  the  Church 
to  absent  members,  such  as  the  sick  and  dying.  That  this 
custom  did  prevail  in  early  times,  is  a  well  attested  fact,  and 
is  admitted  by  your  own  authorities.  In  Henry's  Christian 
Antiquities,  you  may  read  this  sentence  :  "  Some  portions  of 
the  consecrated  elements,  as  has  been  observed,  were  kept  for 
special  purposes,  to  be  sent  to  the  sick,"  &c.  (p.  201.) 
Here,  again,  your  Prayer-Book  is  at  variance  with  yom*  al- 
leged model,  the  "Primitive  Church  !"* 


*The  same  rubric  is  found  in  the  English  book,  but  somewhat  dif- 
ferently expressed.  But  that  book  contains  a  declaration  at  the  end 
of  the  service,  to  the  effect,  that  although  the  communicants  receive 
upon  their  knees,  jet  no  adoration  of  the  "Sacramental  Bread  or 
Wine  there  bodily  received''  is  intended.  Thus,  after  all,  it  is  but 
bread  and  wine.  However,  in  the  face  of  this  declaration,  one  of  the  most 
eminent  clergymen  of  the  Anglican  Church,  Prof.  Keble,  has  recently 
written  a  work  on  "  Eucharistic  Adoration,"  in  which  he  boldly  ad- 
vocates the  adoration  of  the  Eucharist !  Another  instance  of  the  want 
of  unity  of  doctrine  in  the  establishment. 

The  declaration  here  noticed,  has  been  omitted  in  your  American 


L  E  T  r  K  R     VIII.  239 

The  next  service  iu  your  Prayer-Book  is  that  for  the  Public 
Baptism  of  Infants.  Let  us  see  what  doctrine  is  contained 
therein.  Althoufrh  it  airrees  in  many  respects  with  the  Catholic 
form  of  administeriuf^  tliis  Sacrament,  after  which  it  is  evidently 
modeled,  yet  it  is  not  exactly  the  same.  I  am  happy,  however, 
to  say,  that  it  is  on  the  whole,  the  least  objectionable  portion  of 
the  Prayer-Book.  In  doctrine,  it  appears  to  be  entirely  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Let  nie 
direct  your  attention  to  the  evidence  of  this  fact.  In  the 
second  prayer  I  find  this  petition — "We  call  upon  thee  for 
this  infant,  that  he  coming  to  tliy  holy  Baptism,  may  receive 
remission  of  sin  by  spiritual  regeneration."  And,  again,  in 
the  prayer  immediately  before  Baptism — "  Sanctify  this  water 
to  the  mystical  wasliing  away  of  sin  ;  and  grant  that  this 
child  now  to  be  baptized  therein,  may  receive  the  fulness  of 
thy  grace."  And  after  Baptism  has  been  administered,  the 
minister  says  :  "  Seeing  now  that  this  child  is  regenerate  and 
grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,"  &c.  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  give  thanks  in  these  words — "  We  yield  thee  hearty 
thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to 
regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for 
thy  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy 
holy  Church."  Now,  in  these  prayers  and  declarations,  I 
find  the  same  eifects  ascribed  to  Baptism  as  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  viz  :  forgiveness  of  sin,  spiritual  regeneration,  and 
admission  into  the  Church.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  your 
Prayer-Book.  But,  is  this  the  doctrine  of  your  clergy  and 
people.  I  need  not  tell  you  that  it  is  not.  It  is,  indeed, 
held  by  a  portion  of  them,  but  by  most  of  them  it  is  utterly 
repudiated  in  the  very  face  of  the  explicit  and  solemn  decla- 
rations which  I  have  cited  I  All  this  strong  language  is  ex- 
plained away,  and  made  to  mean — nothing  !  Ministers  and 
people  join  in  uttering  declarations  and  prayers  which  they 
do  not  believe !  Is  not  this  dishonest  ?  Is  it  not  a  mockery  V 
So  little  importance  is  attached  to  this  Sacrament  among  you, 
that  it  is  not  unusual  to  meet  with  members  of  your  Church 
who  do  not  consider  it  as  necessary  to  salvation.  A  person 
who  was  present  at  a  private  baptizing  by  one  of  your  clergy 

book  ;  whether  it  wa?  done  in  order  that  j-ou  might  he  at  liberty  to 
practire  this  adoraiion,  I  .'ihall  not  nndcrtakc  to  say,  but  the  omission 
is  at  least  worthy  of  mention  among  the  variations  of  the  Prayer-Book. 

■21* 


240  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

recently,  heard  two  of  your  members  assert  that  they  did  not 
regard  Baptism  as  a  "  saving  ordinance  !"  That  these  per- 
sons expressed  the  common  opinion  among  your  members,  I 
have  no  doubt.  And  yet,  the  opening  exhortation  in  your 
Baptismal  Service  expressly  asserts,  "None  can  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  Grod,  except  he  be  regenerate  and  born  anew 
of  water  and  of  the  Holy  Grhost,"  and  your  catechism  declares 
Baptism  "  necessary  to  salvation."  But  all  this  shows  how 
little  practical  influence  your  Church  exerts  over  the  oijinions 
of  her  members,  and  how  little  real  regard  the  members  pay 
to  the  Prayer-Book. 

After  your  minister  has  baptized  the  child,  he  makes  the 
sign  of  the  cross  upon  its  forehead.  Here,  in  imitation  of 
Catholic  practice,  you  do  for  once  make  use  of  that  ancient 
symbol.  But,  if  on  that  occasion,  why  not  upon  others? 
You  profess  to  follow  the  early  Church,  and  yet  the  early 
Church  used  the  sign  of  the  cross  as  often  as  do  modern  Ca- 
tholics, as  we  learn  fi-om  Tertullian,  a  writer  of  the  second 
century.  This  writer  says:  "At  every  step  and  motion, 
when  we  come  in  and  when  we  go  out,  whether  we  put  on 
our  clothes  or  dress  to  walk  abroad,  in  the  bath,  at  table,  at 
the  lamp,  lying  or  sitting,  whatever  be  our  occupation,  we 
draw  on  our  foreheads  the  sign  of  the  cross.  Should  you  ask 
for  the  Scripture  authority  for  this  and  such  like  practices,  I 
answer  there  is  none  ;  but  there  is  tradition  that  authorizes 
it,  custom  that  confirms  it,  submission  that  observes  it." 
(De  Coron.  Ilil.)  From  this,  it  is  evident,  that  the  early 
Christians  used  this  sacred  sign  even  more  frequently  than 
Catholics  at  present.  Here,  again,  let  me  ask,  who  most  re- 
sembles the  Primitive  Church,  you  or  we  ? 

The  use  of  the  cross  even  at  Baptism  is  much  disliked  by 
many  of  your  people,  and  to  accommodate  such,  your  Ameri- 
can revisers  inserted  a  rubric  gi^'ing  the  minister  permission 
to  omit  it  if  requested  !  I  notice,  also,  another  alteration 
made  in  this  service  by  your  American  revisers.  They  have 
changed  the  -word  jyriest  for  that  of  minister,  wherever  it  oc- 
curred in  the  English  book.* 

*In  the  English  Prayer-Book,  as  it  first  appeared  iu  1548,  the  Bap- 
tismal Service  was  still  more  Catholic — both  in  its  language  and  cere- 
monies. It  contained  a  form  of  exorcism  to  be  used  over  the  child  ; 
it  prescribed  the  use  of  holy  oil,  and  a  white  vestment,  &c.  These, 
and  many  other  ancient  practices,  retained  by  your  so-called  ' '  Reform- 
ers," have  been  reformed  a.iv&j . 


LETTER     VIII.  241 

Your  Communion  Service  is  followed  by  the  Catechism,  in 
which  I  find  but  little  worthy  of  notice.  It  is  made  up  chief- 
ly of  the  Creed,  Ten  Commandments,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
with  questions  and  answers  thereon.  These  are  followed  by 
a  brief  exposition  of  the  Sacraments.  In  reply  to  the  ques- 
tion, "How  many  Sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his 
Church,"  I  find  this  answer,  "  Two  only,  as  generally  neces- 
sary to  salvation."  This  language  is  rather  ambiguous,  but 
it  seems  to  teach  that  there  are  only  tM'O  Sacraments  which 
are  necessary  for  men  generally.  It  does  not  assert  that 
there  are  not  more  than  two  Sacraments.  At  least  this  is 
the  way  it  is  understood  by  a  portion  of  your  clergy.  And 
yet,  this  interpretation  is  at  variance  with  the  Thirty-Nine 
Articles,  for  the  25th  Article  declares  that  these  five,  com- 
monly called  Sacraments,  that  is  Confirmation,  &c.,  "  are  not 
to  be  counted  for  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel."  On  the  other 
hand,  one  of  your  Homilies  seems  to  allow  the  word  Sacra- 
ment to  be  applied  to  other  rites  besides  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  although  not  in  the  same  strict  sense,  "but 
in  a  general  acceptation,  the  name  of  a  Sacrament  may  be 
attributed  to  any  thing  whereby  an  holy  thing  is  signified." 
(^Homily  on  Prayer  and  Sac.)  If  such  be  the  case,  why  do 
your  writers  so  strenuously  oppose  the  seven  Sacraments  of 
the  Church?  In  regard  to  the  Eucharist,  the  Catechism 
teaches  that  there  are  two  parts,  first  the  outward  sign,  that 
is  the  Bread  and  Wine,  and  secondly,  the  inward  part,  that 
is,  "the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  which  are  spiritually 
taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's  Supper." 
Now,  according  to  this  definition,  the  communicant  receives 
both  the  Bread  and  Wine,  and  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 
If,  then,  the  two  are  received  together,  your  Prayer-Book 
teaches  consuhstant iation ,  which  was  Luther's  doctrine.  In 
the  words  just  quoted,  your  Prayer-Book  departs  from  the 
English.  In  the  latter  it  is  said,  "  The  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  which  are  verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received,"  your 
American  revisers  substituted  the  word  spiritually  for  verily 
and  indeed.  That  word  spiritucdly,  is  a  favorite  word  among 
all  Protestants.  Wherever  anything  supernatural  occurs  in 
the  Scriptures  or  in  religion,  it  is  all  explained  and  cleared 
up,  or  rather  set  aside  by  that  all-powerful  little  word, 
"spiritually."  This  or  that  passage  of  Scripture  is  inter- 
preted spiritually.  This  or  that  effect  follows  the  Sacraments, 
but  only  spiritually.     When  men  are  puzzled,  in  the  dark, 


242  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

or  wish  to  avoid  committing  tliemselves,  they  immediately 
take  refuge  in  vague  and  ambiguous  terms. 

The  next  service  in  your  Prayer-Book,  is  that  of  Confirm- 
ation. If  you  will  read  it  over  carefully,  you  will  find  that 
it  is  nothing  more  than  a  religious  ceremony,  in  which  j>er- 
sons  who  have  been  baptized  come  forward  and  renew  their 
Ba^^tismal  engagements,  and  at  the  same  time  receive  the 
blessing  of  the  chief  minister.  I  trust  you  will  pardon  me 
if  I  tell  you  plainly,  that  this  is  not  genuine  Confirmation — 
it  is  not  primitive,  Scriptural  and  Apostolic  Confirmation. 
True  Confirmation  is  a  Sacrament  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  given  to  the  baptized,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  bishop's 
hands,  accompanied  with  the  application  of  holy  chrism. 
Your  clergy  maintain  that  Confirmation  is  a  divine  institu- 
tion, and  they  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  to  prove  that  it  was 
practised  by  the  Apostles.  But,  if  you  will  examine  care- 
fully the  passages  to  which  they  refer,  you  will  find  that  the 
practice  therein  set  forth,  was  something  more  than  such  a 
Confirmation  as  you  have.  Thus,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, we  read  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  confirming  the  Sa- 
maritans. The  account  says,  "  They  prayed  for  them  that 
they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  afterwards,  that 
"They  laid  their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy 
Ghost."  (Chap.  viii.  15,  17.)  We  find  St.  Paul  doing  the 
same  thing  at  Ephesus.  After  he  had  baptized  them,  it  is 
said,  ^' And  when  Paul  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  on  them."  (Ch.  xix.  6.)  Now,  these  and  other 
.similar  passages,  in  which  Confirmation  is  evidently  referred 
to,  show  conclusively  that  that  rite,  as  practised  by  the  Apos- 
tles, was  the  means  of  conveying  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  since 
your  bishops  do  not  pretend  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the 
ceremony  which  they  practice,  it  is  clear  that  that  ceremony 
is  not  Confirmation  of  the  true  and  Apostolic  stamp. 

Besides,  Confirmation  when  rightly  administered,  is  ac- 
companied with  the  use  of  chrism  or  the  holy  anointing.  In 
the  Catholic  Church,  this  chrism  is  a  compound  of  oil  of 
olives  and  balm  of  Gilead,  solemnly  consecrated  by  the  bishop 
for  the  purpose,  and  is  symbolical  of  the  graces  conferred 
by  this  Sacrament.  It  is  applied  to  the  forehead  of  each 
candidate,  in  the  form  of  the  cross.  That  it  was  used  by  the 
primitive  Churclf,  can  be  abundantly  proved  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Fathers  and  other  ancient  documents.  Let  me 
give  you  a  few  specimens.     Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 


L  E  T  T  K  II     VIII.  243 

who  lived  in  the  second  century,  says :  ' '  We  are  called 
Christians  because  we  are  anointed  with  the  oil  of  God." 
St.  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  a  little  later,  says  :  "  It  is 
necessary  that  he  who  has  been  baptised,  be  anointed  like- 
wise;  that  having  received  the  chrism,  that  is  the  unction, 
he  may  be  the  anointed  of  God,  and  may  have  in  himself  the 
grace  of  Christ."  {Epist.  Ixx.  ad  Januar.^)  The  same  fact 
is  proved  from  the  Canons  of  Ancient  Councils.  To  give  a 
single  instance :  among  the  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Laodi- 
cea,  held  in  the  fourth  century,  I  find  this  :  "  Those  who  are 
enlightened,  must,  after  baptism,  be  anointed  with  the  hea- 
venly chrism,  and  partake  of  the  kingdom  of  God."  (Canon 
XLVni.)  These  extracts,  shew,  too,  that  this  anointing 
was  looked  upon,  not  as  an  indifferent  ceremony,  but  as 
something  important  and  necessary.  But  your,  so-called 
"Reformers,"  rejected  it,  although  it  had  been  used  in  the 
Chm'ch  for  fifteen  centuries. f 

I  have  thus  shewn,  tliat  the  service  which  you  call  Con- 
fii'uiation,  is  not  the  Confirmation  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  of 


"•■■  Another  Epistle  of  this  celebrated  Father,  who  by  the  way  is 
sometimes  much  applauded  by  your  divines,  contains  a  passage  which 
shews  that,  in  his  day.  Confirmation  was  regarded  as  conferring  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Speaking  of  Peter  and  John,  in  Samaria,  as  related  ia 
Acts,  he  says:  "That  alone  which  was  wanting,  was  supplied  by 
Peter  and  John,  that  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands,  they 
might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  same  thing  is  now  done  by  us, 
when  they  who  have  been  baptised  in  the  Church  are  presented  to  the 
bishops,  that  bj-  our  jirayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands,  they  may 
receive  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  be  perfected  by  the  seal  of  the  Lord."  — 
(i}).  Ixxiii.  ad  Jub.) 

t  The  use  of  oil  in  the  religious  ceremonies  of  the  Primitive  Church 
is  admitted  by  Bishop  Burnet  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Arti- 
cles. He  says  :  "  We  do  not  deny  but  that  the  Christians  liegan  very 
early  to  use  oil  in  holy  functions.  The  climate  they  lived  in  making- 
it  necessary  to  use  oil  much  for  stopping  the  perspiration,  that  might 
dispose  them  the  more  to  use  oil  in  their  sacred  rites.  It  is  not  to  be 
denied,  but  that  both  Theophilus  and  TertuUian  in  the  end  of  the 
second,  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  do  mention  it."  — 
{^Art.  25.)  Burnet's  explanation  about  the  "climate,"  is  alike  ima- 
ginary and  ridiculous. 

The  use  of  chrism,  in  Confirmation,  in  the  early  Church,  is  admitted 
by  another  of  your  writers,  Henry,  in  his  Christian  Antiquities,  in 
which  I  read  as  follows  :  "The  first  ceremony  of  Confirmation  was  the 
unction  or  chrism.  The  origin  of  this  custom  is  obscure.  Bishop  Pear- 
son thinks  it  came  into  the  Church  shortly  after  the  times  of  the 
Apostles."     (§153.) 


244  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

the  Primitive  Church.  It  is  only  in  the  Catholic  Church 
that  Scriptural  and  Apostolic  Confii-mation  is  administered, 
and  there  you  .should  seek  it,  if  you  believe  it  to  be  of  divine 
institution  and  obligation.  In  the  evidence  I  have  set  before 
you  upon  the  subject,  you  see  again  that  it  is  not  your 
Church,  but  the  Catholic  Church  that  follows  the  Bible  and 
the  Primitive  Church.* 

The  next  service  in  your  Prayer-Book  is  a  "  Form  of 
Solemnization  of  Matrimony."  This  service  I  find  has  been 
much  altered  from  the  English  original.  In  the  latter,  there 
is  a  Rubric  requiring  the  banns  to  be  "  published  in  the 
Church,  three  several  Sundays."  This  ancient  and  salutary 
custom  is  in  your  book,  left  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  and 
consequently  it  is  wholly  disused.  In  the  exhortation,  also, 
great  changes  have  been  made.  Indeed,  nearly  all  of  it  has 
been  omitted.  The  middle,  or  body  of  the  exhortation,  in 
which  are  clearly  set  forth  the  nature  and  ends  of  matrimony, 
is  entirely  suppressed,  and  the  two  ends  are  joined  together. 
In  one  of  the  sentences  left  out,  I  find  these  words :  ' '  that 
such  persons  as  have  not  the  gift  of  continency,  might  mar- 
ry." From  these  words,  you  see  that  the  members  of  your 
mother  Church  of  England  still  believe,  or  still  profess  to 
believe,  in  the  "gift  of  continency."  Having  suppressed 
the  public  recognition  of  this  "gift,"  among  you,  I  cannot 
say  whether  or  not  your  members  have  lost  all  faith  in  it ; 
but  fi-om  the  manner  in  which  many  of  them  are  accustomed 
to  speak  of  those  members  of  the  Catholic  Church  who  devote 
themselves  to  the  service  of  God  in  a  single  state,  I  fear  the 
idea  of  such  a  ' '  gift"  is  almost  entirely  obliterated  from  your 
minds.  It  would  be  well  for  such  persons,  as  they  still  pro- 
fess to  follow  the  Bible,  to  consider  these  words  of  our  Lord, 
"  There  be  eunuchs,  which  have  made  themselves  eunuchs  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.  He  that  is  able  to  receive  it, 
let  him  receive  it,"  (^Matth.  xix.  12,)  and  also,  these  of  St. 
Paul :   "  He  that  giveth  her  in  marriage  doeth  well,  but  he 


*  The  Confirmation  Service  contained  in  the  Prayer-Book,  as  it  ori- 
ginally appeared,  was  much  more  like  the  Catholic  service,  from  which 
it  was  copied.  It  not  only  included  a  prayer  for  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  upon  the  candidates,  but  the  bishop  had  to  sign  them  with 
the  cross.  In  support  of  this  statement,  and  all  similar  ones,  I  refer 
the  reader  to  the  worlv  by  Dr.  Card  well  already  mentioned. 


L  K  T  T  E  11      N'  1 1  r 


•245 


that  giveth  lier  not  in  maniage  doctli  better."     (1  Cvr.  vii. 

38.)* 

I  notice  that  your  American  revisers  have  suppressed  the 
word  ''priest,''  and  substituted  that  of  "minister''  through- 
out the  whole  of  this  service. 

They  have,  also,  suppressed  the  second  part  of  the  follow- 
ing sentence,  "With  this  ring  I  thee  wed,  with  my  boihj  I 
thee  worship :'  Now,  why  have  you  left  out  the  words  in 
italics  ?  Whatever  may  have  been  your  motive,  their  suppres- 
sion serves  to  show  that  in  your  Jlothcr  Church  the  ' '  leorship" 
of  created  Icings  is  practiced,  at  least  at  every  nuptial  cele- 
bration !  And  yet,  you  Episcopalians  are  dreadfully  shocked 
at  the  devotion  paid  by  Catholics  to  the  Blessed  Virgin— the 
pui-est  and  most  exalted  of  all  creatures.  It  is  not  usua.1 
among  us  to  designate  that  devotion  by  the  term  ' '  worship  :" 
but  even  if  we  were  to  do  so,  we  should  not  thereby  be  charge- 
able with  idolatry,  unless  those  who  follow  the  English  Prayer- 
Book  are  also  chargeable  with  it. 

You  have,  also,  omitted  sundry  psalms,  prayers,  exhorta- 
tions, and  Scripture  readings,  thus  abridging  the  service  fully 
one-half.  In  a  prayer  thus  omitted,  it  is  said  that  God  has 
taught  ' '  that  it  should  never  be  lawful  to  put  asunder  those 
whom  Thou  by  matrimony  hast  made  one."  It  is  hardly  to 
be  supposed,  that  this  prayer  emanated  from  Cranmer,  who 
did  not  scruple  to  divorce  King  Henry  VIII.  from  his  wives, 
whenever  that  monster  desired  such  an  indulgence.  But 
whatever  was  its  source,  it  bears  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  absolute  indissolubility  of  marriage. 

«  In  one  of  your  Homilies,  also,  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Excel- 
leucv  of  Continence  is  expressly  admitted.  Thus— "  Finally,  all  such 
as  feel  in  themselves  a  sufficiency  and  ability,  through  the  ^vorklng  of 
God's  spirit,  to  lead  a  sole  and  continent  life,  let  them  praise  God  for 
his  gift  and  seek  all  means  possible  to  maintain  the  same  ;  as  by  read- 
ing of  Holy  Scriptures,  by  godly  meditations,  by  continual  prayers, 
and  such  other  virtuous  exercises."     ( Third  part  of  the  Sermon  against 

Adultery.)  „  ,    ,.      .         •     •      * 

I  would  add  here,  that  the  Catholic  custom  of  dedicating  virgins  to 
God  in  tlie  religious  state,  is  acknowledged  by  one  of  the  most  cele- 
brated Anglican  writers,  the  "judicious''  Hooker,  to  have  existed  in 
primitive  and  Apostolic  times  :  "The  custom  of  the  Primitive  Church, 
says  he,  "  of  consecrating  holy  virgins  and  widows  mi  to  the  service  of 
God  and  his  Church,  is  a  thing  not  obscure,  but  easy  to  be  known, 
both  by  that  which  St.  Paul  himself  concerning  them  hath,  (1  Cor. 
vii  25^1  Tim.  v.  9.)  and  by  the  later  consonant  evidence  ot  other 
men's  'writings.''     (Eccl.  PolUy,  B.  vii.  chap.  vi.  2.) 


246  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Your  American  revisers  suppressed  the  recognition  of  this 
truth,  just  as  they  suppressed  many  other  truths  which  were 
too  rigid  for  their  lax  notions,  or  which  were  likely  to  prove 
unpopular.  The  result  is  seen  in  the  loose  ideas  entertained 
by  most  of  yoiu-  own  people  upon  this  question,  and  in  the 
frightful  increase  of  cases  of  divorce  in  nearly  all  the  States 
of  the  Union. 

Lastly  :  there  is  a  rubric  at  the  end  of  the  service  in  the 
English  book,  declaring  it  fit  "  that  the  new  married  persons 
should  receive  the  Holy  Communion  at  the  time  of  their  mar- 
riage." This  is  a  good  old  Catholic  custom;  but,  in  your 
American  book,  all  reference  to  it  is  suppressed. 

I  come  now  to  notice  the  ' '  Order  for  the  Visitation  of  the 
Sick."  It  is  no  doubt  a  well-arranged  and  pious  office,  but  I 
believe  it  is  very  rarely,  if  ever,  used  by  your  ministers  as 
prescribed,  that  is,  whole  and  entire.  In  this  service,  as 
elsewhere,  the  ruthless  hand  of  your  American  revisers  is 
plainly  visible.  They  have  entirely  expunged  the  following 
rubric  found  in  the  English  book : 

Here  shall  the  sick  person  he  moved  to  make  a  special  con- 
fession of  his  sins,  if  he  feel  his  conscience  troubled  with  any 
weighty  matter.  After  ichich  confession  the  2>''icst  shall  ah- 
solve  him,  (;if  he  humbly  and  heartily  desire  it)  after  this  sort: 

' '  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  left  power  to  His 
Church  to  absolve  all  sinners  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in 
Him,  of  His  great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine  offences  :  and  by 
His  authority  committed  to  me,  I  absolve  thee  from  all  thy 
sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.     Amen." 

AH  of  the  above,  rubric  and  absolution,  has  been  omitted 
by  your  American  reformers,  who  seem  to  have  thought  that 
they  were  better  judges  in  such  questions  than  their  Mother 
Church  of  England,  from  whose  fold  they  had  so  recently 
been  severed  by  the  political  independence  of  our  country. 
Having  already  discussed  the  subject  of  confession  in  connec- 
tion with  your  morning  service,  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  any 
thing  more  respecting  it.  I  have  only  again  to  remind  you, 
that  in  what  I  have  just  quoted  from  the  English  book,  you 
have  priestly  absolution  in  the  very  words  used  by  the  Catho- 
lic priest;  and  that,  in  the  "  special  confession  of  his  sins," 
to  which  the  sick  man  is  to  be  moved,  you  have  "auricular 
confession"  in  all  its  fulness,  such  as  Catholics  are  accustomed 


LETTER     Y  1 1  I  .  247 

to  practice.  How  then  can  yon  censitrc  this  ]n-actice  among 
Catholics,  while  it  is  sanctioned  by  yonr  Mother  Chnrch  of 
Enghuid.  Yon  believe  that  Chnrch  to  be  a  gennino  Chnrch, 
and  sonnd  and  pnre.  And  yet,  it  expressly  favors  and  en- 
joins what  you  consider  one  of  the  most  objectionable  features 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  If  the  sanction  of  this  ancient  \»rac- 
tice,  by  the  Chnrch  of  England,  does  not  lead  you  to  approve 
of  it,  perhaps  it  will  at  least  teach  you  to  moderate  your  zeal 
and  animosity  against  those  who  conform  to  it,  solely,  from  a 
sense  of  duty  to  God. 

In  your  service  for  the  ' '  Communion  of  the  Sick,"  there  is, 
also,  a  rubric  which  declares  that  in  case  the  sick  person  is 
too  weak  to  receive  the  Connuunion,  he  is  to  be  told  that  if 
he  ' '  truly  believes  in  Christ,  he  doth  eat  and  drink  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  to  his  soul's  health,  althongli 
he  do  not  receive  the  Sacrament  with  his  mouth."  This  is  a 
very  extraordinary  opinion.  It  sliows  that  after  all  the  strong 
language  elsewhere  used  in  your  Prayer-Book  upon  this  sub- 
ject, nothing  more  is  meant  than  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  are  received  in  a  sort  of  figure  or  m3-stical  way.  But 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  solve  the  difficulties,  and  reconcile  the 
contradictions  in  which  this  question  is  involved  in  the  vari- 
ous services  of  your  Prayer-Book.  If  you  are  able,  my 
friend,  to  gather  therefrom  any  clear  and  consistent  notion  of 
the  subject,  I  must  pronounce  you  a  very  lucky  Episcopalian, 
and  the  sooner  you  impart  the  light  with  which  you  are  fa- 
vored to  your  brethren,  especially  your  bishops  and  clergy, 
who  are  for  ever  at  loggerheads  upon  the  subject,  the  better 
it  will  be  for  the  peace  and  unity  of  your  communion. 

I  pass  over  the  services  for  the  Burial  of  the  Dead,  and 
the  Chui-cJiiiif/  of  Vi'omcn,  as  not  requiring  any  special  obser- 
vation, although  I  notice  in  them  variations  from  the  Eng- 
lish standard,  particularly  in  the  substitution  of  the  word 
"  minister"  for  "  priest."  I  cannot  forbear  remarking,  how- 
ever, that  the  office  for  Cliurcliiiuj  of  Women  is  one  which 
very  few  of  your  people  have  ever  seen  performed.  Like 
the  Saints'  Days,  it  lies  hidden  among  the  leaves  of  the 
Prayer-Book,  and  almost  unknown. 

Your  book  contains  an  office  for  the  Visitation  of  Prison- 
ers, which  I  do  not  find  in  the  English.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  English  book  contains  one  which  is  not  found  in  yours. 
I  mean  the  one  entitled,  A  Commination,  or  denouncing  of 
God''s  anger  and  judgment  against  sinners.  This  service  i» 
22 


248  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

used  iu  tlie  Anglican  Church  on  the  first  day  of  Lent,  and  at 
such  other  times  as  may  be  appointed  by  the  ordinary.  The 
principal  feature  of  it  consists  in  the  minister's  pronouncing 
a  solemn  curse  upon  sundry  wicked  characters,  who  are  suc- 
cessively named,  thus — 

Min. — "  Cursed  is  he  that  smiteth  his  neighbor  secretly." 

Ans. — "  Amen." 

In  this  manner,  ten  distinct  curses  are  fulminated  by  the 
Prayer-Book,  against  the  various  classes  of  evil-doers.  All 
of  this,  as  I  have  already  said,  has  been  left  out  of  your 
American  book — which  omission  is  another  censure  upon  your 
Anglican  mother.  Poor  old  dame,  "Young  America"  has 
treated  you  with  very  little  deference  or  respect. 

The  next  portion  of  your  Prayer-Book  is  called  the  Psal- 
ter. It  is  made  up  of  the  Psalms  of  the  Old  Testament, 
arranged  for  each  day  of  the  month — the  idea  of  which  is 
borrowed  from  the  constant  use  of  these  Psalms  in  the  devo- 
tional services  of  the  Catholic  Chm-ch.  I  notice  but  one 
point  here  requiring  special  observation,  and  that  is  a  singu- 
lar discrepancy  between  one  of  these  Psalms  as  it  occurs  iu 
your  Psalter,  and  as  it  is  found  in  yom*  Protestant  Bible. 
The  Psalm  which  I  refer  to  is  the  14th.  If  you  will  turn 
to  it,  and  compare  your  Prayer-Book  with  your  Bible,  you 
will  find  that  the  Psalter  contains  three  verses  which  are  not 
found  in  your  Bible,  viz  : — the  5th,  6th  and  7th.  Now,  my 
friend,  which  is  correct  here  ?  Has  your  Prayer-Book  added 
three  verses  to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  or  has  your  Protestant 
Bible  left  out  three  which  ought  to  be  in  it  ?  This  is  a  ques- 
tion involving  the  integrity  of  your  Bible — a  question  of 
great  moment  to  those  who  profess  to  follow  the  ' '  Bible 
only."  If  you  will  examine  the  matter,  you  will  discover 
that  your  Protestant  Bible  is  at  fault  here.  The  verses  in 
question  are  quoted  by  St.  Paul,  {Rom.  ch.  iii.)  from  the 
Old  Testament,  in  his  day,  and,  consequently,  they  are  a 
portion  of  the  word  of  God.  Yet,  your  Bible  does  not  con- 
tain them ! 

A.  B. 


LETTER  IX. 

The  Thirty-Niue  Articles. — The  Sixth  Article  examined. — The  Scrip- 
tures not  the  sole  rule  of  Faith. — The  Canonical  books. — This  article 
contradicted  by  the  Homilies. — The  authenticity  of  certain  books 
discussed. — Testimony  of  Knapp  and  Hurnet. — The  Eighteenth  Ar- 
ticle examined. — It  anatliematizes  crrorists. — Results  of  Schism. — 
The  Nineteenth  Article  examined. — Its  defmitiou  of  the  Msible 
Church  false  and  absurd. — So  vague  and  general  as  to  suit  all  sects. 
— Adopted  by  the  Methodists. — Twentieth  Article  examined. — It 
condemns  the  Authors  of  Anglicanism. — Apostolic  Traditions. — 
Admission  of  Knapp. — Twenty-first  Article  examined. — Left  out  of 
the  American  book. — Authority  of  General  Councils. — Church  au- 
thority incompatible  with  private  judgment. — Twenty-third  Article 
examined. — Ambiguous  and  vague. — Its  doctrine  as  to  a  lawful  min- 
istry.— Candid  admission  of  Burnet. — Twenty-fourth  Article  exam- 
ined.— Use  of  Latin  in  the  public  service. — Not  forbidden  in  the 
Scriptures. — Its  advantages. — Used  by  Anglicans  in  certain  cases. — 
English  Prayer-Book  used  among  the  Irish. 

My  Deau  Friend: 

We  have  now  advanced  as  far  as  the  Thirty- Nine  Articles 
of  religion,  in  which  the  doctrines  of  your  Church  arc  more 
fidly  and  formally  set  forth.  To  examine  them  in  detail, 
and  discuss  the  many  points  which  they  involve,  would  alone 
fill  a  large  volume.  And  having  already'  extended  these  let- 
ters far  beyond  the  limits  I  at  first  proposed  to  myself,  I  must 
confine  myself  to  a  few  brief  remarks  upon  such  of  the  Arti- 
cles as  present  subjects  of  most  interest  at  this  time.  In  a 
previous  letter,  I  had  occasion  to  speak  of  the  various  changes 
which  the  Articles  have  undergone,  between  the  period  of 
their  original  formation,  and  that  of  their  adoption  in  this 
country.  They  were  originally  compiled  by  Cranmer,  and 
were  set  forth  as  the  doctrines  of  Anglicanism  in  the  year 
1552.  They  were  not  borrowed  fi-om  Catholic  sources  like 
your  Liturgy,  but  in  a  great  measure,  from  the  continental 
system  of  Protestantism  as  embodied  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. Like  everything  else  connected  with  the  establish- 
ment of  Anglicanism,  they  seem  to  have  owed  their  authority 
originally  to  "  a  royal  proclamation  alone,"  as  Bishop  Short 

(249) 


'IbO  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

admits,  and  it  seems  doubtful  whether  they  were  submitted 
to  the  Convocation  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  when  they 
were  first  put  forth.  At  first  they  were  forty-two  in  number. 
Under  Queen  Elizabeth,  ten  years  later,  they  were  revised, 
and  several  of  them  were  suppressed,  others  were  altered, 
and  some  new  ones  were  introduced.  The  number  was  then 
reduced  to  thirty-eight.  In  the  various  changes  introduced  at 
that  time,  the  Wirtemberg  Confession  was  the  model  followed. 
After  the  lapse  of  nine  or  ten  years  more,  another  revision 
was  made,  in  which  article  twenty-nine  was  restored,  making 
the  whole  number  thirty-nine,  as  now.*  At  a  more  recent 
period,  when  they  were  finally  adopted  by  your  Church  in 
1801,  after  a  protracted  discussion  and  much  opposition,  I 
may  say  they  were  again  reduced  to  thirty-eight,  for  article 
twenty-one  is  omitted  although  the  number  is  retained. 

Such,  in  brief,  were  the  changes  through  which  these  Arti- 
cles have  passed  ;  such  were  the  difficulties  experienced  first 
by  your  Anglican  mother,  and  then  by  your  own  denomina- 
tion, in  agreeing  upon  a  set  of  doctrines.  And,  after  all, 
what  is  the  result  ?  According  to  two  high  authorities  among 
you.  Short  and  Burnet,  "  several  of  the  articles  are  so  fram- 
ed, that  conscientious  persons,  holding  difierent  sentiments, 
may  safely  subscribe  to  them!"  (Shorfs  History,  §  325.) 
Thus,  their  language,  instead  of  being  clear  and  precise,  is 
purposely  vague  and  ambiguous  !  '  This  is,  indeed,  a  severe 
thrust.  Certain  rotten  political  parties  in  our  own  country, 
have  been  known  to  adopt  ' '  platforms"  ambiguously  worded 
in  order  to  embrace  a  larger  number  of  voters,  but  when  a 
body  of  men,  calling  themselves  a  Church  of  Christ,  descends 
to  so  unprincipled  a  measure,  we  are  at  a  loss  for  words  to 
express  our  astonishment  and  disgust.  But  if  numbers  have 
been  gained  by  this  ambiguity,  jjeace  and  unity  have  been 
sacrificed  forever.  Divisions,  parties,  and  fierce  doctrinal 
controversies  have,  consequently,  been  the  constant  heritage 
of  Anglicanism,  and  also  of  her  American  daughter. 

But  the  force  of  this  observation  will  be  seen  in  the  course 
of  the  brief  examination,  which  I  am  now  about  to  give  them.^ 
It  will  not  be  necessary  to  call  up  each  of  the  articles  seria- 
tim :  for  some  of  them,  I  freely  admit,  to  be  sound  and  or- 

*For  these  facts  in  the  history  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  see  j'our 
own  authority,  Short's  Hist,  of  Ch.  of  England,  "Appendix  C  to 
chap.  X." 


LETTER    I  X 


251 


thodox.  No  denomination  of  professing  Christians  has  ever 
fallen  so  low,  as  not  to  preserve  in  its  doctrinal  system,  some 
of  the  great  truths  of  religion.  The  first  five  of  your  arti- 
cles relate  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  the  three 
Persons  of  the  Godhead,  and  seem  to  be  correct  as  far  as 
they  go.  But  the  sixth  article  is,  at  once,  an  extraordinary 
specimen  of  unsoundness  and  ambiguity.    It  reads  as  follows: 

"  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion :  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be 
proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it 
should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith,  or  be  thought  requi- 
site or  necessary  to  salvation.  In  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  we  do  understand  those  Canonical  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt 
in  the  Church." 

This  is  followed  by  a  list  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  found  in  your  Pi-otestant  Bible. 

To  show  the  unsoundness  of  this  doctrine  on  geuerat 
grounds,  would  require  too  lengthy  a  discussion.  But,  I 
beg  you  to  remember  what  has  been  said  in  a  previous  letter 
bearing  upon  this  question.  First,  that  the  Church  existed 
long  before  the  Bible,  and  during  all  that  time,  was  the  only 
guide  of  the  faithful  in  matters  of  salvation.  Secondly,  that 
the  New  Testament  did  not  appear  all  at  once  entire  and 
complete,  but  only  by  piece-meal — a  part  at  one  time,  and  a 
part  at  another,  first  one  of  the  Gospels,  then  another,  after- 
wards an  Epistle,  then  the  Acts,  then  another  Epistle ;  each 
of  these  different  books,  or  tracts,  having  been  composed  in 
reference  to  some  special  pui-pose,  or  some  actual  occxirrence, 
and  for  the  u.se  of  the  Christians  in  some  particular  city  or 
district  of  country.  Thirdly,  that  these  tracts  of  Scripture 
were  confined  pretty  much  to  certain  localities,  and  read  by 
comparatively  few,  as  they  existed  only  in  manuscript  form, 
the  art  of  printing  being  then  unknown.  Fourthly,  that  for 
three  hundred  years  these  Scriptures  existed  in  this  limited 
and  scattered  condition,  along  with  others  of  a  spurious  char- 
acter, until  finally  collected  and  approved  by  the  Church. 
Now,  if  you  will  carefully  consider  all  these  facts,  especially 
that  the  Church  existed  long  before  the  Bible,  and  that  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  put  forth  one  by  one,  and 
rather  as  aids  to  the  living  authority  of  the  Church,  you  can- 
not but  perceive  that  it  is  at  least  a  matter  of  great  doubt 
whether  these  Scriptures  contain  ' '  all  things  necessary  to 
90* 


252  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

salvation."  Had  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  intended  to  give 
their  followers  a  vrritten  system  of  doctrines  for  their  sole 
guidance,  it  is  morally  certain  that  it  would  have  been  delib- 
erately composed  and  put  forth  as  one  complete  treatise.  But 
such  was  not  the  case.  Our  Lord  neither  left  any  writing  of 
the  sort,  nor  commanded  his  Apostles  to  compose  any  such 
writing.  And  what  the  Apostles  wrote,  they  wrote  as  indi- 
viduals, and  not  as  a  body  of  inspired  teachers,  aiming  at  the 
full  instruction  of  Christians  in  all  future  time.  Only  half 
of  the  Apostles  were  concerned  in  the  production  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  those  of  them  who  did  write, 
wrote  as  I  have  said,  rather  to  expose  some  particular  error 
of  the  day,  or  to  meet  the  religious  wants  of  some  particular 
congregation .  In  this  respect,  their  writings  rather  resembled 
the  pastoral  letters  of  a  bishop,  called  forth  by  the  exigency  of 
the  times  or  local  circumstances.  Under  these  circumstances, 
it  is  utterly  improbable  that  these  books  contained  every  neces- 
sary doctrine  and  principle  of  the  Christian  i-eligion.  In  the 
face  of  this  improbability,  nothing  less  than  a  clear  and  ex- 
press declaration  of  divine  authority  could  establish  the  alleg- 
ed fact.  Have  you  any  such  declaration  ?  Has  Almighty 
God  assured  you,  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  con- 
tain "all  things  necessary  to  salvation?"  Certainly,  there 
is  no  such  assurance  given  in  any  one  of  these  books.  And 
if  not  in  these  books,  it  cannot  exist  at  all,  for  you  do  not 
profess  to  have  received  any  other  revelation  from  Him.  Ob- 
serve that  what  you  need  is  precisely  what  I  say — a  clear  and 
positive  assurance.  Inferences,  surmises,  or  even  probabili- 
ties, will  not  answer.  You  must  have  a  divine  assurance, 
unmistakably  conveyed.  But  that  you  have  not.  Conse- 
quently, you  cannot  know  that  "Holy  Scripture  containeth 
all  things  necessary  to  salvation."  Consequently,  this  decla- 
ration of  your  sixth  article  is  a  mere  assertion,  and  one  that 
cannot  possibly  be  proved. 

Having  thus  shown  that  the  assertion  cannot  be  proved,  it 
follows  that  the  conclusion  drawn  by  your  article,  is  equally 
uncertain,  viz:  that  "Whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor 
may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man, 
that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith" — for  unless 
it  be  proved  that  Scripture  contains  all  that  is  necessary,  there 
may  be  something  not  contained  therein  which  ought  to  be 
believed.  This  is  sufficient.  But  I  can  show  you  to  a  de- 
monstration, that  the  conclusion  of  your  article  is  false.     I 


LETTER     IX.  253 

will  prove  it  by  your  own  Prayer-Book.  In  fact,  I  have  al- 
ready done  tlii.s  in  a  previous  letter.  AVhen  treating  of  the 
Creeds,  I  showed  you  that  there  were  several  points  contained 
in  them,  which  could  not  be  proved  by  Holy  Scripture.  And 
yet,  these  points  you  retjuire  to  be  believed  as  articles  of  faith. 
Consequently,  your  sixth  article  is  disproved.  Your  Church 
has  contradicted  herself.  If  you  receive  the  sixth  article, 
you  must  reject  the  Creeds.  On  the  other  hand,  if  you  re- 
ceive the  Creeds,  you  must  reject  the  sixth  article. 

But  I  also  pronounced  this  article  to  be  ambiguous.  In 
so  doing,  I  had  reference  to  the  last  clause,  which  says — "  In 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Scripture  we  do  understand  these  Ca- 
nonical books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  of  whose  au- 
thority icas  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church."  Now,  what  is 
meant  by  these  words,  "  was  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church." 
We  must  either  2:)ronounce  them  ambiguous  or  absurd.  Taken 
in  their  literal  sense,  the  article  is  involved  in  self-contra- 
diction. Every  one  conversant  with  the  subject,  knows  very 
well  that  several  of  the  books  of  Scripture  received  by  this 
article  as  canonical,  were  in  doubt  in  the  Church,  that  is  by 
persons  in  the  Church  for  a  long  time.  Among  the  books 
enumerated  by  this  article  as  composing  the  Old  Testament 
is  the  Book  of  Esther.  But  hear  what  Home,  a  high  au- 
thority among  3'ou  in  such  matters,  says,  "Its  authenticity 
was  questioned  by  some  of  the  fathers,  in  consequence  of  the 
name  of  God  being  omitted  throughout."  (^Introduction  to 
the  Crit.  Studi/  of  the  Scriptiii-es.      Vol.  4,  p.  GO.) 

Hear,  also,  what  another  high  authority  and  eminent  com- 
mentator among  you.  Dr.  Bloomfield,  says  of  the  second  and 
third  Epistles  of  St.  John: — "Of  the  authenticity  of  this 
and  the  third  Epistle  of  St.  John,  doubts  were  at  first  enter- 
tained, but  after  due  examination  they  were  at  an  early  period 
received  as  canonical,"  &c.  (Greek  Testament,  Sec.  Ejnst. 
of  St.  John.)  Of  the  second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  the  same 
author  says,  "  Of  this  second  Epistle  the  authenticity  was  at 
first  called  in  question."  He  makes  the  same  statement  con- 
cerning the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  Here,  then,  are  five  of 
the  books  of  Scriptui'c  received  by  your  Church,  concerning 
all  of  which  there  was  doubt  in  the  early  times,  according  to 
the  admission  of  your  own  divines  and  commentators.  I 
could  easily  show  you  that  other  books  were  also  in  doubt 
for  a  considerable  time,  in  some  parts  of  the  Church. 
But  these  five  are  enough  for  our  purpose  :  and  even  a  smaller 


254  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

number  would  answer.  It  thus  appears,  that  while  your 
Prayer-Book  professes  to  receive  as  Scripture  only  those 
books  of  which  there  never  was  a  doubt  in  the  Church,  it 
nevertheless,  does  actually  receive  at  least  five  books  which 
were  for  some  time  in  doubt.  Here  is  a  gross  self-contra- 
diction. 

But  your  sixth  article,  after  enumerating  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  admitted  into  the  Canon,  proceeds  in  these 
words: — "And  the  other  books  (as  Hierome  saith)  the 
Church  doth  read  for  example  of  life  and  instruction  of  man- 
ners :  but  yet  doth  it  not  apply  them  to  establish  any  doc- 
trine." Then  follows  a  list  of  these  books,  which  includes 
five  that  are  received  by  the  Catholic  Church  as  parts  of  the 
Bible,  viz:  Tobias,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch, 
and  the  first  and  second  Maccabees.  These  books  your 
Church  has  displaced  from  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  and 
reckoned  them  among  the  Apocrypha.  That  she  has  griev- 
ously erred  by  so  doing,  can  be  most  clearly  proved.  In  the 
first  place,  let  me  remind  you  that  these  books  constituted  a 
portion  of  the  Bible  when  the  English  schism  first  commenced 
under  Henry  VIII.,  and  further,  that  they  had  been  so  re- 
cognized for  at  least  a  thousand  years  previous  to  that  period ; 
and,  also,  that  they  are  now  so  recognized  by  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  Christendom.  These  are  undeniable  facts.  And 
these  facts  ought  to  be  conclusive.  Very  few  persons  have 
the  ability  and  opportunity  to  examine  the  historical  eviden- 
ces upon  which  the  inspiration  of  these  books  depend.  What 
then  are  the  mass  of  Christians  to  do  ?  How  are  they  to 
decide  whether  they  are  divine  or  not?  Is  the  testimony  of 
Anglicanism  or  of  your  own  little  sect,  born  only  yesterday, 
to  outweigh  the  testimony  of  the  entire  Christian  world  for 
many  ages,  and  of  at  least  three-fourths  of  it  at  the  present 
time  ?  The  idea  is  perfectly  preposterous.  Every  intelligent 
mind  must  instantly  perceive  that  the  prima  facie  evidence 
in  the  case,  vastly  preponderates  in  fiivor  of  these  books, 
that  is,  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  Bible.  Your  Church  does 
not  even  claim  to  be  infallible.  Consequently,  she  may  err 
in  this  matter.  If  so,  how  can  you  depend  upon  her  word, 
especially  against  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world. 

But,  while  your  Church  denies  that  these  books  form  a 
part  of  the  Scriptures,  she  again  contradicts  herself,  by  quot- 
ing them  as  divine  and  inspired  in  her  Book  of  Homilies. 
This  I  will  prove  to  you  by  a  few  specimens.      Thus,  in  the 


L  K  T  T  E  «    IX.  255 

Homily  on  Swearing,  (first  part)  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus 
is  thus  cited  :  "And  Ahnighty  God  by  the  wise  man  saith, 
That  man  which  sweareth  much  shaJl  he  full  of  sin,  and  the 
scourge  of  God  shall  not  depart  from  his  house."  In  the 
margin,  the  reference  to  this  passage  is  Ecclus.  23,  11. 
Here,  then,  the  Ahuiglity  is  recognized  as  speaking  through 
this  book,  which  of  course  is  inspiration. 

In  the  Homily  on  Obedience,  (first  part)  after  quoting  a 
passage  from  the  book  of  AVisdom  as  to  the  authority  of  kings, 
it  is  said  :  "  Let  us  learn  also  here,  by  the  infallible  and  un- 
deceivahle  uord  of  God,  that  kings,"  &c.  Here  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  is  plainly  recognized.  In  an- 
other i^lacc,  when  about  to  cite  the  Book  of  Tobit,  it  is  said: 
' '  The  same  lesson  doth  the  Holy  G  host  also  teach  in  sundry 
places  of  the  Scripture,  saying  ;"  then  follows  the  passage,  to 
which  the  margin  gives  the  reference,  "  Tobit,  4,  10."  In 
these  and  other  portions  of  the  Homilies  to  which  I  might 
easily  point  you,  the  divine  inspiration  of  these  books  is  ex- 
pressly admitted.*  And  yet,  your  sixth  article  refuses  these 
books  a  place  among  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  and  says  that 
"  the  Church  doth  not  apply  them  to  establish  any  doctrine." 
Here  is  another  gross  .self-contradiction.  I  have  shown  you 
then,  that  these  books  are  endorsed  by  your  Homilies,  and 
your  Homilies  are  endorsed  by  the  Prayer-Book,  and,  conse- 
quently, the  Catholic  Canon  of  Scripture  is  confirmed  by  your 
Church  in  one  place,  although  rejected  in  another. 

Here  I  might  safely  rest  the  question,  having  brought  the 
testimony  of  the  rest  of  Christendom,  at  present  and  for 
ages  past,  together  with  the  testimony  of  your  own  Church 
in  the  Homilies,  against  the  assertion  of  your  own  Church  in 
the  sixth  article.  In  such  a  ca.se,  no  thoughtful,  prudent  and 
impartial  person  can  hesitate  which  side  to  take.  But  still  it 
may  be  well  to  notice  briefly  the  evidence  for  and  against 
these  books.  The  chief  arguments  employed  by  your  winters 
against  them,  is,  that  they  were  not  written  in  Hebrew  like 
the  other  Scriptures,  and  that  they  were  not  admitted  into  the 
Canon  by  the  Jews.  The  former  objection  is  easily  refuted. 
When  these  books  were  composed,  Hebrew  had  ceased  to  be 
the  vernacular  language  of  the  Jews;  and,  of  course,  they 
wrote  in  the  language  then  used  by  them,  that  is,  the  Greek. 
The  Apostles  of  our  Lord  were  Jew.s — and  yet  they  did  not 

*  Remember  your  25th  article  endorses  the  Homilies  as  "instruc- 
tive,"' "godly'"  and  "■wholesome." 


256  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

compose  their  epistles  in  Hebrew,  but  in  Greek.  And  as  you 
do  not  deny  the  inspiration  of  their  writings  on  that  account, 
why  should  you  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  books  in  question 
on  that  ground  ?  Could  not  the  Divine  Spirit  speak  through 
the  medium  of  Greek  as  well  before  the  days  of  Pontius  Pi- 
late as  after  ? 

The  other  objection — that  they  were  not  sanctioned  by  the 
Jews — is  no  reason  for  rejecting  them.  Did  the  Jews  ever 
sanction  the  Greek  Testament  written  by  the  Apostles  ? 
But  this  objection  rests  upon  an  opinion  which  does  not 
seem  to  be  well  established.  The  Jews  may  not  have  for- 
mally received  these  books  into  the  Sacred  Canon ;  but  I  be- 
lieve it  is  not  true  that  they  rejected  them  entirely.  The 
principal  evidence  upon  which  our  opponents  rely,  is  the  as- 
sertion of  Josephus  upon  the  subject.  But  that  assertion  is 
by  no  means  conclusive.  Hear  what  Knapp,  a  high  au- 
thority among  you,  says  about  Josephus'  testimony:  "But 
there  is  some  obscurity  attending  the  passage,  Contra  Ajiio- 
nem,  i.  8,  in  which  this  catalogue  is  contained.  We  cannot 
be  certain,  from  this  passage,  that  Josephus  intended  to  in- 
clude the  Books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther  and  Nehemiah, 
in  his  catalogue."  (Christian  Theology,  p.  84.)  It  ap- 
pears, then,  that  Josephus'  testimony,  to  which  so  much  im- 
portance has  been  given  by  certain  Protestant  controvei'sialists, 
is,  after  all,  a  two-edged  sword,  cutting  both  ways.  If  it  makes 
against  the  disputed  books,  it  makes  also  against  several  that 
you  admit  to  be  canonical.  But  an  examination  of  this  cele- 
brated passage  in  Josephus,  will  show  that  it  is  by  no  means 
decisive  against  the  books  in  question  ;  but  on  the  contrary, 
rather  in  their  favor.  The  passage  is  given  at  length  in 
Home's  Introduction,  and  the  following  sentence  from  it 
fully  justifies  what  I  have  said:  "  Our  history,  indeed,  has 
been  written,  since  Artaxerxes,  very  particularly;  but  it  has 
not  been  esteemed  of  equal  authority  with  the  former  by  our 
forefathers,  because  there  had  not  been  an  exact  succession 
of  prophets  since  that  time."  Now,  the  first  part  of  this 
sentence  merely  declares  that  the  later  history  was  not  con- 
sidered of  "  equal  authority  with  the  former."  There  is  no 
mention  made  of  the  books  in  question ;  and  the  closing  part 
of  the  sentence  evidently  implies  that  there  had  been  same 
prophets  among  them  since  tlie  period  referred  to. 

The  books  in  question  are  contained  in  the  ancient  Septua- 
gint  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament.     And  since  that 


LETTER     IX.  257 

•was  the  Bible  used  by  the  Apostles  and  early  Christians,  tlii.s 
fact  is  a  pretty  conclusive  argument  in  fiivor  of  the  divine  au- 
thority of  these  books. 

But  admitting  that  these  books  were  not  universally  ac- 
knowledged for  some  time,  that  is  not  a  sxifficient  reason 
for  rejecting  them.  I  have  shown  you  that  the  same  was 
true  of  several  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  If  the 
former  be  rejected ,  the  latter  must  be  rejected  also.  The 
truth  is,  the  whole  question  must  rest  upon  the  authority  of 
the  Church.  Very  few  persons  have  a  sufficient  acquaintance 
with  ancient  ecclesiastical  records  to  be  competent  to  decide 
the  question  for  themselves ;  and  of  these  few,  not  a  moiety 
of  them  would  be  able,  after  an  investigation,  to  come  to  the 
same  conclusion,  so  many  difficulties  surrounding  the  subject. 
The  reader,  who  has  not  investigated  the  matter,  will  be 
convinced  of  the  truth  of  my  remark  by  the  admis.sion  of 
Knapp,  cited  in  my  first  letter.  Speaking  of  the  Scriptures 
as  received  by  the  Protestants,  he  says :  "  Can  it  be  shown, 
by  historical  evidence,  that  all  the  books  which  now  stand 
in  this  collection,  belonged  to  it  originally?  Of  most  of 
these  books,  this  can  be  satisfactorily  shown.  But  respect- 
ing some  particidar  books,  it  cannot  be  ascertained  from  his- 
torical records,  either  that  they  belonged  to  the  collection 
originally,  or  at  -what  time  they  were  received  as  canonical. 
For  no  complete  list  of  all  our  canonical  books  can  be  gath- 
ered from  the  works  of  the  oldest  Jewish  w^riters."  {Chris- 
tian Theoloyy,  Vol.  I.  p.  84.)  Here  is  the  admission  of  a 
learned  Protestant  theologian — one  of  high  authority  in  your 
Church.  It  ought  to  satisfy  j-ou  of  the  impossibility  of  any 
one's  settling  this  question  for  himself  at  this  late  day  :  it 
ought  also  to  convince  you  of  the  absurdity  of  pretending  to 
follow  the  "  Bible  only,"  when  you  are  unable  to  find  out 
for  youi-self  what  the  Bible  is.  It  is  plainly  a  matter  in 
which  you  need  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  and  of  an  infal- 
lihle  Church,  for  we  need  certainly  here,  and  nothing  but 
an  infallible  Church  can  guide  us  with  certainty. 

In  the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers  of  the  Church,  the 
books  in  question  are  quoted  as  divine,  along  with  the  other 
books  of  Scripture.  I  know  that  Home,  and  other  Protest- 
ant authors,  wiU  tell  you  that  in  the  lists  of  sacred  books 
given  by  this  or  that  ancient  historian  or  father,  the  books  in 
question  are  not  included.  But  if  your  writers  told  you  the 
whole  truth  about  the  matter,  they  would  tell  you  that  these 


258  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

lists  also  leave  out  certain  books  which  are  received  in  your 
catalogue ;  so  that  like  the  much  vaunted  testimony  of  Jose- 
phus,  it  tells  as  much  against  you  as  it  does  against  us.* 

But  it  is  the  Church  that  is  to  decide  this  question.  How 
has  she  spoken  in  her  councils  ?  The  first  council,  that  of 
Laodieea,  by  which  a  catalogue  was  drawn  up,  was  a  small  one 
composed  of  only  a  few  bishops.  This  Council  included  Baruch 
but  omitted  the  Apocalypse,  but  the  genuineness  of  the  canon  in 
which  this  catalogue  is  found,  has  been  disputed.  At  the 
third  council  of  Carthage-,  at  which  the  great  father,  St.  Au- 
gustine, was  present,  a  catalogue  was  set  forth  which  included 
all  these  works  except  Baruch.  At  a  council  held  at  Con- 
stantinople in  692,  Baruch  was  included  in  the  Sacred  Canon, 
and  thus  it  was  completed,  as  it  is  now  i-eccived  in  the  Ca- 
tholic Church. 

If  all  that  has  been  said  does  not  convince  you  of  the  in- 
spired character  of  these  books,  it  must  at  least  make  you  feel 
very  doubtful,  whether  in  consequence  of  the  omission  of  these 
books,  your  Bible  is  riot  a  mutilated  one.  If  you  still  have 
your  doubts  whether  these  books  should  be  in  the  Canon,  you 
cannot  but  have  very  great  doubt  whether  they  should  be  left 
out.  And  what  a  wretched  state  of  uncertainty  for  one  to  be 
in,  who  follows  the  "Bible  only!" 

If  the  guidance  of  the  Church  be  necessary  as  to  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  still  more  necessary  as  to  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  I  have  already  shown  you  from  Pro- 
testant authorities,  that  several  of  these  books  were  not  re- 
ceived as  genuine  Scripture  by  some  of  the  early  Christians, 
and  much  more  might  be  said  under  this  head.  Besides 
this  difficulty,  there  is  another  growing  out  of  the  fact  that 
certain  other  books,  not  in  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
were  for  a  long  time,  regarded  as  Apostolic  and  inspired. f    In 

*  I  regret  to  have  to  state  that  your  authors,  such  as  Home  and 
Burnet,  in  their  anxiety  to  prove  the  Protestant  Canon  from  ancient 
documents,  do  not  always  adhere  to  the  truth.  To  give  an  instance. 
Burnet  says  : — ''  The  Council  of  Laodieea,  by  an  express  Canon  deliv- 
ers the  catalogue  of  the  Canonical  books  as  we  do."  This  is  not  coi'- 
rect.  The  catalogue  of  that  council  includes  Baruch,  and  leaves  out 
Revelation.  In  proof  of  mj^  statement,  I  refer  the  reader  to  that  Pro- 
testant collection  of  ancient  Canons,  which  I  have  all  along  made  use 
of,  that  is  Hammond's.  See  Cations  of  Laodieea,  Canon  60,  p.  185 
Am.  Edit. 

f  Knapp,  speaking  of  the  importance  of  an  early  collection  of  the 
genuine  books  of  Scripture,  says  :   "This  was  the  more  necessary,  a« 


L  K  T  T  E  U     I  X  .  259 

rogaril  to  tho  foriuor  point,  let  nie  add  a  fow  testimonies. 
Your  article  quotes  Hicrome  as  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. One  of  your  own  authorities  shall  tell  you  what 
that  early  father  says,  as  to  one  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  Thus — "So  Hieronymus,  when  speaking  of  the 
Book  of  Jude,  says,  that  it  had  indeed  been  doubted  and 
rejected  by  some."  (^Knapp,  Ch.  Theol.,  Vol.  I.  p.  91.) 
Yet,  your  sixth  article  receives  this  book  into  the  Canon,  al- 
though professing  to  receive  only  such  books  as  were  never 
doubted  ! 

Origen,  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  other  early 
fathers  of  the  Church,  in  their  catalogues  of  the  books  of 
the  Xew  Testament,  leave  out  several  books  now  received, 
as  I  could  easily  show  you  by  an  appeal  to  their  writ- 
ings ;  but  in  accordance  with  the  general  plan  of  these 
letters,  I  prefer  to  establish  my  historical  facts  by  the  admis- 
sions of  your  own  authorities.  Bishop  Burnet,  a  high  au- 
thority in  the  Anglican  and  your  own  commmiion,  speaking 
of  the  books  of  the  Xew  Testament  is  compelled  to  admit, 
"  That  some  question  was  made  touching  some  of  them,  be- 
cause there  was  not  that  clear  and  general  knowledge  concern- 
ing them  that  there  was  concerning  the  others."  (Expos,  of 
Thirt)j-Xine  Articles.^  A  strange  admission,  while  he  is  in 
the  act  of  expounding  an  article  which  professes  to  receive 
only  those  books  of  which  ' '  there  never  was  any  doubt  in 
the  Church  I"  On  the  same  page,  this  great  champion  of 
Anglicanism  gives  us  the  names  of  the  doubted  books  :  ' '  Some 
question  was  made  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  second  of 
St.  Peter,  the  second  and  third  of  St.  John  and  St.  Jude's 
Epistle."  On  the  next  page,  he  adds  the  book  of  Revelation 
to  this  list  of  books  tliat  were  questioned.  Burnet's  object 
was  to  present  this  subject  in  its  most  favorable  light,  and  to 
prove  the  Canon  of  the  Scriptures,  like  a  true  Protestant,  with- 
out the  authority  of  the  Church,  hence  his  admission  as  to 
the  doubts  entertained  in  regard  to  some  of  the  books  is  cau- 
tiously expressed,  and  does  not  by  any  means  convey  a  full 


many  spurious  writing  which  were  ascribed  to  the  Apostles,  were  in 
circulation,  and  even  publicly  read  and  used  in  the  Churches.'  ( Ch. 
Theol. ,  Vol.  I,  p.  88.) 

23 


260  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

idea  of  tlie  difficulty,  as  every  one  knows  who  is  familiar  with 
the  subject — but  still  it  answers  my  purpose.* 

From  the  admissions  of  your  own  authorities,  I  have  shown 
you,  that  some  half  dozen  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
in  doubt  for  a  long  time  after  the  Apostles ;  some  of  them 
having  been  omitted  in  the  catalogues  of  the  Fathers  and  Pro- 
vincial Councils,  even  as  late  as  the  fourth  century.  If,  then, 
the  records  of  the  "  Primitive  Church,"  or  the  Church  of  the 
first  three  centuries,  do  not  furnish  you  with  evidence  upon 
which  to  determine  the  Canon  of  Scriptm-e,  you  are  utterly 
unable  to  determine  it.  Rejecting  the  ever-living  author- 
ity of  the  Infallible  Church,  you  cannot  have  any  adequate 
security  against  error  in  this  important  matter.  Hence,  not 
a  few  Protestants  v/lio  have  given  attention  to  this  question, 
have  been  led  to  doubt  whether  the  present  Canon  is  reliable. 
This  fact  is  expressly  stated  by  Knapp,  who  says  :  "  Luther 
considered  it  allowable  to  call  in  cjuestion  the  authenticity  of 
the  Apocalypse,  and  the  Epistle  of  James ;  and  he  was  fol- 
lowed in  this  opinion  by  many  theologians  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  And  other  Protestant  theologians  have  doubted 
respecting  other  books."  (CA.  Thecil.,  Vol.  I.  p.  92.)  I 
trust  the  foregoing  observations,  confirmed  by  authorities 
which  you  acknowledge,  will  suffice  to  demonstrate  the  ab- 
surdity of  your  sixth  article,  when  it  professes  to  receive  "  in 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  those  books  of  "  vv^hose 
authority  there  never  was  any  doubt  in  the  Church."  If  this 
rule  be  made  to  exclude  certain  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  was  evidently  the  aim  of  the  framers  of  the  Arti- 
cle, it  must  also  exclude  some  six  or  eight  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  books  now  received  universally.  It  is,  conse- 
quently, suicidal  in  its  operation.  My  remarks  also  show, 
how  inconsistent  it  is  for  men  to  profess  to  follow  the  ' '  Bible 
only,"  when  they  are  utterly  unable  to  determine  with  any 
certainty  v/hat  books  should  compose  the  Bible.  In  the  third 
place,  my  remarks  show  the  necessity  of  an  infollible  guide 
in  this  matter,  such  as  we  have  in  the  Catholic  Church.    You 

*I  cannot  but  notice  here  an  instance  of  Burnet's  >Yant  of  consis- 
tency and  fiiirness.  He  gives  as  autliorities  for  the  New  Testament, 
the  catalogues  of  Origen,  Atbanasius,  and  the  Councils  of  Laodicea 
and  Carthage.  But  he  does  not  tell  you  that  Origen  includes  the 
two  Maccahees,  and  Athanasius  Includes  Barucb,  and  the  Canon  of 
Laodicea  includes  Baruch  and  excludes  Revelation  ;  and  lastly,  that 
the  Council  of  Carthage  included  all  those  books  now  contained  in  the 
Catholic  Bible. 


LETTER     IX.  261 

cauuot  in  this  matter  rely  upon  Anglicanism,  nor  upon  your 
own  Chm'ch :  for  this  article  places  both  Anglicanism  and 
yoiu"  own  Church  at  variance  with  the  rest  of  Christendom, 
upon  this  point.  Xo  sensible  man  can  take  the  testimony  of 
30ur  little  denomination  on  this  question,  against  that  of  the 
"  Church  throughout  all  the  world,"  for  at  least  twelve  hun- 
dred years.  Ivemendier,  the  old  and  true  Church  of  Eng- 
land, fi'om  the  time  of  its  foundation  by  Augustine  down  to 
the  period  of  its  overthrow  by  Henry  VIII.,  received  all  the 
books  of  Scripture  which  Catholics  now  receive.  Will  you 
reject  her  testimony,  extending  through  nearl}"  a  thousand 
years,  and  receive  that  of  Anglicanism,  which  was  conceived 
in  schism,  brought  forth  in  rebellion,  and  nom-ished  and  sup- 
ported by  royal  despots  ?  ]3ut  even  if  this  difficulty  were 
not  in  the  way,  how  can  you  receive  her  testimon}',  when,  as 
I  have  shown,  she  ha.s  contradicted  herself  by  quoting  these 
books  as  inspired  in  her  Homilies! 

I  pass  over  several  of  your  articles,  which  being  Luth- 
eran or  Calvinistic,  contain  matter  for  animadversion. 
The  doctrines  of  some  of  them  have  been  already  noticed  in 
the  previous  letters,  while  those  of  the  rest  do  not  appear 
suitable  to  occupy  the  little  remaining  space  that  I  am  able 
to  devote  to  the  subject,  I  therefore  advance  to  the  eighteenth 
article.     This  article  declares: 

"  They  are  also  to  be  had  accursed,  that  jjresume  to  say 
that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  Law  or  Sect  which  ho 
professeth." 

I  cite  this  ai'ticle.  first,  because  it  shows  that  your  Church 
does  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  an  anathema  upon  errorists, 
when  it  suits  her  to  do  so.*  And,  secondl}-,  because  the 
error  herein  denounced  prevails  not  oidy  very  generally  among 
Protestants,  but  also  among  3'our  own  members.  You  know 
very  well  that  it  is  a  very  common  opinion  among  you,  that 
it  matters  but  little  what  "  sect"  a  man  belongs  to,  provided 
his  conduct  be  upright.  It  is  true,  the  article  may  have  spe- 
cial reference  to  "sects,"  without  Christianity.  But  then 
the  question  arises,  what  is  Christianity '!  Is  every  man  to 
be  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  Christianity,  who  merely 
professes  himself  a  Christian  V  In  other  words,  is  every  de- 
nomination or  "  sect"  of  professing  Christians  to  be  held  as 

*In  the  Latin  text  the  anathema  here  prouounceil  is  more  literal. 
ThviS — Sunt  (t  illi  Anathematizanih.  <<t. 


262  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

sufficient  for  salvation  ?  It  is  an  easy  matter  for  a  man  to 
profess  Christianity,  and  yet  reject  all  its  characteristic  doc- 
trines. This  has  been  done,  and  it  is  still  done.  The  Uni- 
tarians deny  the  Grodhead  and  Atonement  of  Christ.  Yet, 
that  denomination  is  looked  upon  pretty  much  as  other  Chris- 
tian denominations.  The  Quakers  reject  the  Sacraments  and 
the  Ministry,  and  some  of  them  the  Deity  of  Christ.  Yet, 
the  Quakers  are  looked  upon  pretty  much  as  other  Christian 
denominations.  In  the  popular  Protestantism  of  the  day,  it 
is  sufficient  to  belong  to  any  of  these  denominations,  and  no 
great  loss  or  evil  to  belong  to  none  of  them.  And  thiS' 
opinion  is  shai'-ed,  I  know,  by  very  many  Episcopalians. 
This  is  the  natural  and  inevitable  eflect  of  rejecting  the  au- 
thoi'ity  of  the  Church.  There  is  no  practical  standard  of 
faith.  Men  profess,  indeed,  to  take  the  Bible  for  their  rule 
of  faith,  but  it  is  the  Bible  as  they  choose  to  interpret  it. 
There  is  no  living  judge  who  determines  what  is  the  law, 
and  what  is  not..  Hence,  every  man  thinks  and  acts  accord- 
ing to  his  own  private  judgment.  Consequently,  all  Chris- 
tian doctrine  is  involved  in  endless  uncertainty,  confusion 
and  contradiction.  The  founders  of  Anglicanism  set  the 
example,  when  they  rejected  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and 
separated  from  the  rest  of  Christendom ;  and  their  followers 
acting  upon  the  same  principle  of  private  judgment,  have 
gone  further  and  farther  from  the  Catholic  Church.  The 
result  is  seen  in  innumerable  sects,  between  which  the  popu- 
lar mind  is  unable  to  distinguish  which  is  right  and  which 
wrong,  and  hence  all  are  regarded  as  equally  right,  or  per- 
haps with  equal  indifference  or  contempt. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  next  article — the  nineteenth.  This^ 
reads  as  follows  :  ' '  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congre- 
gation of  faithful  men,  in  the  which  the  pure  Word  of  Clod  is 
preached,  and  the  Sacraments  be  duly  administered  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity 
are  requsite  unto  the  same." 

Certainly,  this  is  the  most  extraordinary  definition  of  the 
Church  that  ever  was  put  forth  by  any  man  or  body  of  men. 
This  must  be  one  of  those  articles  which,  by  the  admission  of 
Short  and  Burnet,  were  purposely  expressed  ambiguously, 
so  that  men  of  opposite  opinions  might  assent  to  them  !  A 
more  vague,  inadequate,  ambiguous  and  absurd  definition,  it 
is  almost  impossible  to  conceive  of.  Let  us  glance  at  some  of 
its  terms.     We  are  told  that  "the  visible  Church  of  Christ 


LETTER     I X 


203 


is  a  congregation  of  ftiithfiil  men."  Take  these  words  liter- 
ally, aucl  they  justify  Congregationalism.  Any  one  congre- 
gation maybe  the  Church;  and  what  then  becomes  of  the 
Church  of  the  Creed  and  of  your  Collects — the  CidlwUc 
Church — "  the  holy  Church  Universal?"  Certainly,  the  at- 
tribute of  visibility  applies  to  every  part  of  the  Church  alike. 
If  visible  in  one  country  or  city,  it  must  be  visible  also  in 
another,  and  wherever  it  exists  upon  the  face  of  tlic  earth  ; 
consequently,  the  universal  or  Catholic  Cluirch  is  the  visible 
Church.  But  your  article  asserts  that  the  "  visible  Church 
is  a  congregation  of  faithfid  men."  This  definition  will  suit 
the  Congregationalists  very  well.  And  although  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  contained  in  the  creeds 
and  other  parts  of  the  Prayer-Book,  yet  it  is  the  only  definition 
that  suits  the  isolated  and  schismatical  condition  of  Angli- 
canism and  of  your  own  Church.  If  the  people,  generally, 
of  a  nation  may  separate  from  the  Catholic  Church,  so  may 
the  people  of  a  single  province  or  a  single  city.  If  many 
congregations  may  thus  separate  and  be  a  Church,  so  may  a 
single  congregation  sepai-ate  and  be  a  Chuix-h.  This  is  a  le- 
gitimate conclusion.  Your  system  consequently  leads  to,  and 
justifies,  Congregationalism.  All  you  would  require,  would 
be  a  bishop  at  the  head  of  the  congregation,  with  inferior 
ministers  as  his  assistants. 

But  when  we  look  at  the  other  terms  of  this  definition,  we 
are  at  once  struck  with  its  ambiguity  and  absurdity.  The 
Church  is  a  "  congregation  of  /a «7/;/«?  men."  Now,  if  we 
understand  the  term  "faithful"  in  its  strict  sense,  the  con- 
gregation must  be  composed  solely  of  persons  who  are  truly 
pious  and  devoted  to  God.  In  this  sen.se,  it  becomes  imprac- 
ticable, impossible  and  absurd.  Who  ever  knew  such  a  con- 
gregation ?  Every  congregation  is  of  a  mixed  character,  and 
embraces  persons  not  truly  pious,  not  "faithful."  Where, 
then,  is  the  "visible  Church  V"  According  to  this  defini- 
tion, it  does  not  exist.  But  look  now  at  the  other  term.  It 
is  a  "congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure  Word 
of  God  IS  J} reached."  Here  the  question  arises,  what  is  the 
' '  pure  Word  of  God  '?"  There  is  as  much  dispute  about  this 
as  anything  else.  Even  in  your  own  communion,  there  is  a 
diversity  of  opinion  upon  the  point.  What  j'our  High  Church 
bishops  pronounce  the  "  pure  Word  of  God,"  your  Low 
Church  bishops  condemn  as  false  and  corrupt.  How,  then, 
can  you  tell  whether  the  ' '  pure  Word  of  God"  is  preached 


264  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

among  you  or  not  ?  Let  us  suppose  you  have  in  your  con- 
gregation a  preacher  who  does  not  preach  the  ' '  pure  Word 
of  God,"  (and  this  is  a  frequent  complaint  among  your 
"  Evangelicals,")  it  follows  that  you  cease  to  be  "  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ,"  if  your  article  be  correct. 

But  in  this  luminous  definition  of  the  Church,  it  is  further 
required  that  ' '  the  Sacraments  be  duly  administered  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  ordinance,"  &c.  Here  are  several  questions 
involved,  which  must  be  explained  before  any  one  can  obtain 
a  clear  idea  of  the  subject.  What  is  meant  by  "  the  Sacra- 
ments ?"  Does  it  mean  only  two  ?  Or  does  it  mean  seven  'i 
Anglicanism  held  the  seven  Sacraments  throughout  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII.  Has  it  had  any  new  revelation,  which  led 
it  to  reduce  the  number  to  two  V  But  we  are  not  only  not 
told  how  many  Sacraments  the  ' '  visible  Church"  must  have 
— we  are  left  equally  in  the  dark  as  to  what  is  meant  by 
their  being  "duly  administered."  It  is  said,  indeed,  that 
they  must  be  duly  admmistered  "  according  to  Christ's  ordi- 
nance, in  all  these  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  unto 
the  same."  But  this  throws  no  light  upon  the  subject.  For 
■vjJiat  is  "  Christ's  ordinance,"  and  u-Jtat  things  "  are  of  neces- 
sity requisite  V"  In  the  Eucharist,  must  the  bread  be  leav- 
ened or  unleavened  ?  Must  it  be  administered  under  both 
kinds,  or  under  one  only  ?  Must  Baptism  be  administered 
by  immersion  or  by  aspersion  or  by  pouring  ?  And  can  it  be 
administered  by  laymen,  or  only  by  the  clergy  ?  These  and 
other  similar  questions  are  here  involved.  But  they  are  all 
ignored ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  set  forth  in  terms 
so  general,  vague  and  ambiguous,  that  the  definition,  if  it 
can  be  called  such,  will  suit  the  Presbyterian,  Congregation- 
alist,  Methodist,  Baptist,  and  even  the  Unitarian,  just  as 
well  as  the  Episcopalian.  Indeed,  the  Methodists  have 
copied  it  entire,  word  for  word,  and  j^laced  it  among  their 
"Articles  of  Religion,"  where  it  may  be  found  numbered 
XIII.  This  fact  alone  is  an  impressive  commentary  upon 
your  article,  and  shows  plainly  its  utter  insufiiciency  to  con- 
vey any  clear  and  correct  idea  of  the  Church. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  next  article — the  twentieth.  The 
first  sentence  declares  "  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree 
rites  or  ceremonies."  This  is  undoubtedly  true.  But  if  so, 
why  were  the  rites  and  ceremonies  decreed  in  England  by 
the  Church,  abolished  by  Cranmer  and  Elizabeth?  But  the 
article  adds,  that  the  Chui'ch  has   "  authority  in  controversies 


L  E  T  T  E  K     IX.  265' 

of  faith."  This  also  is  sound  doctrine,  and  just  what  every 
Catholic  holds.  But  if  this  be  true,  why  did  the  authors  of 
your  Prayer-Book  resist  the  Church  of  their  day  V  Acting 
\ipon  the  principle  here  laid  down,  that  Church  had  decided 
controversies  of  faith,  and  estabhshcd  the  doctrines  of  Tran- 
substantiation,  8uprouiacy  of  the  Pope,  Invocation  of  Saints, 
&c.  Why,  then,  did  not  the  founders  of  Anglicanism  submit 
to  that  decision  '!  Because  they  were  rebels  and  reckless  rev- 
olutionists. Their  aim  was  to  rule  and  not  to  obey,  like  all 
revolutionists.  In  order  to  overthrow  the  existing  authori- 
ties, they  proclaimed  and  acted  upon,  for  the  time,  the  prin- 
ciple of  private  judgment;  but  so  soon  as  they  attained  to 
power,  they  became  conservatists,  and  returned  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  authority  !  The  authority  of  the  Church  was  de- 
spised when  it  was  in  the  way  of  their  innovations.  But 
having  succeeded,  with  the  aid  of  the  civil  power,  in  setting 
up  their  new-fangled  system,  they  once  more  preached  obe- 
dience ! 

Your  article,  after  laying  down  the  principle  of  Church 
authority,  gives  utterance  to  the  following  truism:  "And 
yet  it  is  not  lawfid  for  the  Church  to  ordain  anything  that  is 
contrary  to  God's  Word  written  ;  neither  may  it  so  expound 
one  place  of  Scripture  that  it  be  repugnant  to  another."  As 
this  is  so  palpably  true  that  no  one  ever  denied  it,  the  decla- 
ration seems  wholly  superfluous.  The  Catholic  holds,  as 
firmly  as  you  do,  that  the  Church  cannot  teach  anything  con- 
ti'ary  to  Scriptui-e.  You  may  assert  that  she  does  teach  what 
is  contrary  to  Scripture.  What  then  ?  Who  is  to  submit? 
Must  the  Church  yield  to  you,  or  you  to  her  ?  It  is  plain 
that  you  must  yield  to  her,  even  on  your  own  principle,  that 
she  has  "  authority  in  controversies  of  faith."  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  the  founders  of  AngUcanism,  in  fi-aming  this 
article,  only  pronounced  their  own  condemnation,  and  the 
condemnation  of  their  followers  in  all  future  time. 

But  your  article  concludes — "Wherefore,  although  the 
Church  be  a  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ,  yet  as  it 
ought  not  to  decree  anything  against  the  same,  so  besides  the 
same  ought  it  not  to  enforce  anything  to  be  believed  for  ne- 
cessity of  salvation."  I  must  confess  I  cannot  perceive  the 
logic  of  this  deduction.  A  civil  government  has  no  right  to 
decree  anything  against  the  constitution.  But  no  one,  there- 
fore, denies  its  right  to  enforce,  as  necessary,  anything  "  be- 
sides the  same."     As  long  as  the  principles  of  the  constitu- 


266  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

tion  remain  intact,  legislative  enactments  are  sound  and  valid. 
The  conclusion  of  the  article  is  plainly  a  non  sequitur.  The 
argument  is  this  :  The  Church  cannot  decree  anything 
against  the  Scriptures;  therefore,  she  cannot  decree  anything 
not  in  the  Scriptures.  This  is  bad  logic.  The  conclusion  is 
not  contained  in  the  premises.  Had  it  asserted,  as  in  the 
sixth  article,  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture,  the  conclusion 
would  have  been  logical,  however  erroneous  theologically. 

The  principle  thus  falsely  deduced,  is  directed  against  the 
Catholic  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Traditions.  That  doctrine 
teaches  that  the  Apostles,  in  addition  to  the  instructions 
which  they  left  the  Church  in  their  writings,  also  delivered 
others  orally  in  their  public  preaching  and  private  teachings. 
No  one  will  deny  that  such  oral  instructions  wei'e  as  truly  in- 
spired, and  as  worthy  of  preservation  and  deference,  as  those 
committed  to  writing.  These  instructions  are  called  Apos- 
tolic Traditions.  They  are  sometimes  called  oral,  but  not 
because  they  have  been  handed  down  orally  merely,  but  be- 
cause they  were  first  entrusted  to  the  Church  in  that  way, 
and  not  by  writing,  as  in  the  epistles.  Though  not  commit- 
ted to  writing  by  the  Apostles,  they  were  very  soon  em- 
bodied in  a  durable  form  in  the  documents  of  the  nest  and 
succeeding  ages,  and  especially  in  the  liturgies  and  creeds, 
and  in  this  way  transmitted  to  the  present  time.  It  is  im- 
portant to  bear  this  fact  in  mind,  for  Protestants,  in  arguing 
against  traditions,  almost  always  treat  them  as  vague,  float- 
ing and  uncertain  opinions,  handed  down  orally ;  and  hence, 
liable  to  so  many  alterations  and  changes,  as  to  be  utterly 
unreliable.  This  is  a  great  error,  and  is  the  cause  of  much 
prejudice  against  the  doctrine. 

Many  and  various  are  the  arguments  by  which  this  doc- 
trine is  established ;  but  I  can  now  glance  only  at  a  few  of 
them.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Scrip- 
tures contain  all  the  important  or  necessary  instructions  of 
the  Apostles.  As  I  have  already  remarked  in  another  place, 
the  manner  in  which  the  several  parts  of  the  New  Testament 
were  put  forth,  make  it  very  doubtful  whether  they  contain  a 
complete  account  of  all  the  material  facts  and  doctrines  of 
Christianity.  Besides,  these  jjarts  or  books  do  not  profess  to 
contain  any  such  complete  account,  neither  singly  nor  com- 
bined. Who,  then,  shall  say  they  do?  A  man  in  his  zeal 
for  his  theory,  may  be  bold  enough  to  make  the  assertion ; 
but  no  man  can  prove  such  an  assertion.     If,  then,  there  is 


LETTER     IX 


26T 


no  evidence  that  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  contain  a  com- 
plete account  of  the  Christian  faith  ami  discipline,  there  may 
have  been  other  important  truths  counuittod  by  the  Apostles 
orally  to  the  first  disciples  and  congregations. 

But,  we  are  not  left  to  speculation  or  mere  probability  in  this 
matter.  The  Apostles  in  these  very  writings  or  scriptures, 
plainly  tells  us  of  other  instructions,  oral  intructions,  which 
they  had  imparted  to  the  Christians  of  their  day,  to  be  kept 
and  handed  down.  Let  me  quote  two  or  three  passages  as 
specimens.  If  you  turn  to  your  Protestant  New  Testament, 
you  will  find  8t.  Paul  saying  to  Timothy — "The  things  thafe 
thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same  com- 
mit thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others 
also."  (2.  Tim.  ii  2.)  Here  the  Apostle  speaks  of  things 
which  Timothy  had  heard  him  deliver,  not  which  he  had  read. 
And  these  things  he  directs  him  to  entrust  to  others.  Here, 
then,  yon  have  traditions,  and  Apostolic  traditions,  in  the 
Catholic  sense  of  the  term,  originating  in  oral  instruction, 
but  passed  from  one  to  another,  as  Timothy  was  connnauded 
to  do.  Turn  also  to  another  Epistle  of  this  Apostle,  and  you 
will  read — "Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the 
traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  hij  irord  or 
our  Epistle."  (2.  Thcss.  ii.  15.)  Now,  here  the  Apostle 
speaks  of  two  kinds  of  traditions,  the  one  by  word  and  the 
other  by  epistle,  that  is  the  unwritten  and  the  written,  and  both 
of  these  he  tells  the  Thessalonians  to  "  hold  fast."  This  is 
the  Catholic  doctrine  precisely.  The  word  tradition  means 
whatever  is  delivered  or  handed  down.  As  the  Scriptures 
were  delivered  and  handed  down,  they  may  be  called  tradi- 
tions, although  it  is  more  common  to  apply  the  term  to  such 
things  as  were  originally  communicated  only  "by  word," 
that  is,  orally. 

It  may  also  be  urged  in  favor  of  this  doctrine,  that  without 
it,  it  is  impossible  to  justifycertain  religious  practices,  which 
Protestants  as  well  as  Catholics,  have  approved  and  adopted. 
I  refer  to  the  religious  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day,  that  is- 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the  seventh,  enjoined  in 
the  Old  Testament ;  and  the  giving  of  Baptism  to  infants. 
There  is  no  express  authority  in  the  New  Testament  for  these 
things.  But  the  Catholic  justifies  them  with  the  aid  of  Apos- 
tolic Traditions.  In  these  Traditions  the  Catholic  also  in- 
cludes the  mixing  of  water  with  the  wine  in  the  Eucharist, 
the  validity  of  Baptism  administered  by  heretics,  and  other 


268  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

points  of  faith  and  practice  not  expressly  contained  in  the 
Scriptures.  I  mention  these  things,  that  you  may  the  better 
understand  what  we  mean  by  Apostolic  Traditions.  But,  if 
you  reject  this  doctrine,  how  can  you  insist  on  the  necessity 
of  Infant  Baptism,  and  the  sanctification  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  ?     You  can  have  no  authority  for  so  doing. 

It  would  be  easy  to  sustain  this  doctrine  by  the  testimony 
of  the  ancient  fathers,  if  my  limits  allowed  of  it.  I  can  only 
give  you  one  citation  as  a  specimen.  I  select  for  the  purpose 
a  short  passage  from  St.  Cyprian,  who  wrote  about  the  year 
250.  This  ancient  father  wrote  an  Epistle  to  Ca3cilius,  to 
maintain  the  necessity  of  mixing  water  with  the  wine  of  the 
Eucharist.  This  custom  he  ascribes  to  tradition — "  Know 
then,"  he  says,  "that  we  are  instructed  to  observe  what 
Christ  delivered  in  offering  the  chalice,  and  to  depart  from 
nothing  of  which  he  set  us  the  example.  The  chalice  which  is 
offered  up  in  remembrance  of  him,  must  contain  irinc  and 
water.'"  (^Epist.  63.)  Every  one  knows  there  is  nothing 
said  in  the  Scriptures  about  this  custom.  And  yet,  this  ear- 
ly bishop  and  martyr  tells  us  that  Christ  himself  delivered 
it,  and  that  it  is  therefore  to  be  strictly  observed.  The  Ca- 
tholic Church  has  always  so  received  it,  and  retained  the 
custom.  But  'in  yoiu*  communion  it  has  been  discarded,  al- 
though you  sometmies  profess  to  follow  the  fathers,  and  to 
have  a  special  regard  for  "  good  old  Cyprian." 

Instead  of  laying  before  you  a  long  chain  of  cjuotations  from 
the  fathers,  in  favor  of  tradition,  I  prefer,  in  accordance  with 
the  plan  of  this  work,  to  set  before  you  the  admission  of  one 
whose  authority  is  high  among  you.  In  Knapp's  Tlieology, 
which  is  a  text  book  in  your  Seminaries  for  ' '  students  of 
divinity,"  I  find  the  following  passage  in  reference  to  the  fact 
that  this  doctrine  was  received  and  j^racticed  by  the  ancient 
fathers.  "  This  oral  tradition  was  often  appealed  to  by  Ire- 
n^eus,  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  (De  Pracser, 
cap.  7,)  and  others  of  the  ancient  fathers,  as  a  test  by  which 
to  try  the  doctrine  of  contemporary  teachers,  and  by  which 
to  confute  the  errors  of  the  heretics.  They  describe  it  as 
being  instruction  received  from  the  mouth  of  the  Apostles  by 
the  first  Christian  Churches,  transmitted  from  the  Apostolical 
age,  and  preserved  in  purity  until  their  own  times.  Tertul- 
lian, in  the  passage  above  referred  to,  says,  that  an  appeal 
to  tradition  is  the  most  direct  way  of  confuting  heretics,  who 
will  often  evade  the  force  of  an  appeal  to  texts  of  Scripture, 


LETTER     IX. 


269 


by  misiuterpreting  them."  (Vol.  I.  Introduction,  §  7.)  From 
this  admission  of  a  distinguished  and  learned  Protestant,  it 
is  evident  that  the  early  fathers  held  the  doctrine  of  Aposto- 
lic Traditions,  just  as  Catholics  now  do,  and  made  use  of 
them  in  their  controversies  with  heretics.  Now,  your  Prayer- 
Book  appeals  to  these  same  fathers  in  behalf  of  Episcopacy, 
and  3'our  writers  all  appeal  to  them  in  order  to  prove  that 
this  or  that  book  was  written  by  an  inspired  Apostle.  And, 
if  you  receive  their  testimony  upon  these  points,  how  can  you 
reject  it  in  regard  to  Traditions  ? 

The  next  article,  the  twenty-fii-st,  on  the  "  Authority  of 
General  Councils,"  has  been  thrown  out  by  your  American 
"  reformers,"  but  it  is  still  found  in  the  English  book.  Its 
first  sentence  declares,  "  General  Councils  may  not  be  gath- 
ered together  without  the  commandment  and  will  of  princes." 

This  is  a  most  extraordinary  assertion  to  emanate  from  a 
body  of  Christian  ministers ;  and  yet  it  is  only  in  accordance 
with  that  servile  submission  to  the  royal  supremacy  Vv-hich  has 
ever  characterised  Anglicanism  from  its  first  origin.  The 
' '  commandment  and  will  of  princes"  has  been  the  source 
of  its  being,  and  the  rule  of  its  faith  and  practice,  as  I  have 
shewn  in  the  preceding  letters.  Everyone  who  has  the  least 
conception  of  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  Church  of  God, 
must  at  once  perceive  the  absurdity  of  this  declaration  of  the 
Twenty-First  Article.  According  to  this  declaration,  a 
General  Council,  no  matter  how  necessary,  could  never  be 
held  if  this  or  that  prince  should  choose  otherwise  I  This 
places  the  action  of  the  Church  entirely  at  his  will  and  pleas- 
ui'e.  He  is  her  lord  and  master.  She  is  his  abject  slave. 
A  doctrine  so  degrading  to  the  Church,  so  destructive  of  her 
authority  and  freedom,  is  too  absurd  to  require  a  respectful 
refutation.  It  is  no  wonder  that  your  American  revisers 
were  ashamed  to  retain  it.  This  Article  proceeds  to  assert 
that  General  Councils  "may  err,  and  sometimes  have  erred," 
and  that  ' '  things  ordained  by  them  as  necessary  to  salvation, 
have  neither  strength  nor  authority,  uiiless  it  may  be  declared 
that  they  are  taken  out  of  Holy  Scripture." 

Now,  if  General  Councils  are  so  unreliable,  why  does  your 
Church  receive  the  Creed,  which  was  first  partly  formed  by 
the  General  Council  of  Nice,  and  afterwards  completed  by 
the  General  Council  of  Constantinople,  in  the  fourth  century  V 
"Will  it  be  said  that  its  doctrines  ' '  are  taken  out  of  Holy 
Scripture?"    I  have  already  proved  that  some  of  its  doctrines 


270  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

cannot  be  found  in  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  manifest  that  this 
reiterated  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture,  is  a  miserable  subterfuge. 
The  article  would  have  suited  Arius  admirably.  In  fact, 
it  would  suit  heretics  of  every  class  and  description  and 
of  every  age.  They  have  all  very  little  respect  for  General 
Councils ;  and  if  you  only  allow  them  the  convenient  plea 
that  such  Councils  have  no  authority,  unless  what  they  decree 
is  "taken  out  of  Holy  Scripture,"  they  ask  nothing  more. 
The  Council  may  condemn  their  error,  and  decide  that  the 
Son  is  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  but  what  do  they  care. 
They  have  a  sufficient  answer:  the  doctrine  is  "  not  taken 
out  of  Holy  Scripture."  Shovdd  the  Council  reply  that  it  is, 
they  rejoin  that  it  is  not.  Thus,  if  the  Council  has  no  autho- 
rity, there  is  nothing  settled,  and  can  be  nothing  settled. 
There  is  endless  dissension  and  contradiction.  Even  if  your 
doctrine  of  the  "sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture"  were  true, 
yet  there  still  remains  the  great  question,  who  is  to  de- 
cide whether  a  certain  doctrine  is  contained  therein  or  not  ? 
You  say  the  Church,  for  your  twentieth  article  declares  the 
"  Church  hath  authority  in  controversies  of  faith."  If  so, 
then  the  Church  ought  to  be  infallible ;  otherwise,  she  may 
decide  erroneously,  and  thus  mislead  her  children.  But  you 
reject  the  idea  of  an  infallible  Church,  and  consequently  you 
require  persons  to  submit  their  judgment  to  a  decision  which 
may  be  erroneous  ;  or  in  other  words,  to  believe  as  a  divine 
truth,  that  which  is  false  and  pernicious.  But  again:  Your 
article  says,  "the  Church  hath  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith."  But  how  is  the  Church  to  exercise  this  authority, — 
how  make  her  authoritative  decision  known  ?  There  are  but 
two  ways:  first,  through  her  head,  the  Pope — but  that  mode 
you  reject,  since  you  acknowledge  no  such  head — secondly, 
by  a  representative  or  General  Council.  This  is  the  only 
remaining  way.  But  if  the  Chui'ch  hath  this  authority,  and 
this  authority  can  be  exerted  only  by  means  of  a  General 
Council,  and  if  that  General  Council  "  may  err,"  what  is  the 
result  ?  Neither  your  General  Council  nor  your  Church  au- 
thority is  worth  a  straw.  That  authority  "  may  err."  Yet 
ih'isfaUihle  authority  is  to  decide  questions  of  faith!  How 
absurd !  How  monstrous  !  Yet  such  is  the  doctrine  of  your 
articles.  This  is  the  result  of  a  vain  attempt  to  combine  in 
one  system,  principles  which  are  utterly  incompatible — that 
is,  private  judgment  and  Church  authority.  If  there  be  such 
a  thing  as  Church  authority  in  matters  of  faith,  that  authority 


LET  T  K  R     I  \  .  "27  1 

Tuust  be  infallible — if  not,  men  are  thrown  back  upon  their 
private  judgment.  There  is  no  mitldle  ground  between 
these  two  principles.  Iligh  Churelunen  may  dream  of  a 
via  media,  but  it  is  only  a  dream.  Their  theory  is  vision- 
ary, inconsistent  and  impracticable.  Like  their  Prayer- 
Book,  they  are  bold  asserters  of  Church  authority,  in  the 
abstract.  But  let  that  authority  be  exerted  against  them, 
or  stand  in  their  way,  and  like  the  ultra  Protestant,  they 
immediately  take  refuge  in  that  convenient  subterfuge, 
"  Holy  Scripture  I"  This  is  what  the  founders  of  Anglican- 
ism did,  and  their  followers  have  been  true  to  their  example. 
Such  submission  to  authority  as  this,  is  all  a  pretense,  a  mere 
sham.  It  is  plain,  that  the  man  who  submits  to  authority 
only  so  far  and  so  long  as  it  accords  with  his  own  judgment, 
does  in  reality  only  follow  his  own  judgment.  As  long  as 
he  judges  the  authority  to  be  exercised  in  accordance  with 
Holy  Scripture,  he  obej-s  it.  But  the  moment  lie  judges  it 
to  depart  from  Holy  Scripture,  he  disobeys  it.  He  is,  there- 
fore, judge  himself,  and  only  follows  his  own  opinion  like  a 
true  Protestant. 

I  pass  over  your  twenty-second  Article,  because  the  doc- 
trines which  it  undertakes  to  censure,  have  been  already  dis- 
cussed in  these  letters. 

Your  twenty-third  Article  is  another  very  clever  specimen 
of  ingenious  ambiguity.     It  reads  as  follows  : — 

' '  It  is  not  lawful  fur  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the  office 
of  public  preaching  or  ministering  the  Sacraments  in  the 
congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  exe- 
cute the  same.  ,  And  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called 
and  sent,  which  be  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by 
men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the 
congregation,  to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's 
vineyai'd." 

The  first  sentence  is  sound  enough.  It  asserts,  with  the 
Catholic,  the  necessity  of  mission,  of  which  I  have  spoken  in 
a  previous  letter.  But  in  the  second  sentence,  when  this 
principle  comes  to  be  explained  or  applied,  the  language 
is  vague  and  meaningless.  We  are  told  that  they  are 
lawful  ministers  who  are  chosen  by  ' '  men  who  have 
public  authority  given  them  in  the  congregation."  This 
language  is  vague ;  firsts  because  it  leaves  us  entirely  in 
the  dark  as  to  what  constitutes  this  "public  authority," 
whether  it  is  civil  or  ecclesiastical ;  secondly,  as  to  who 
•24 


272  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

are    the    men    that    possess    it ;    whether    they  are    bishops 
or  ordinary  ministers  or  mere  laymen ;  thirdly,  as  to  the 
source  of  this  authority  which  is  given  them,  and  how  it  is 
given   them,  whether  it  comes  from  the  king  or  bishop  or 
some  other  officer.     All  these  points  so  necessary  to  a  cor- 
rect understanding  of  the  matter,  are  purposely  evaded.     Be- 
sides, we  are  not  told  that  this   "public  authority"  is  to  be 
even  given  in  the  Church.     The  language  is,  given  in  tlie 
congregation.     Thus,  we  have  a  definition  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes a  lawful  ministry,  which  is  admirably  suited  to  Con- 
gregationalism or  Presbyterianism  or  any  other  ism,  just  like 
your  definition  of  the   "  visible  Church."     In  fact,  its  terms 
are  apparently  arranged  for  the  very  purpose  of  suiting  the 
first  named  denomination.     In  an  "Episcopal"  Church,  one 
would  naturally  expect  something  to  be   said  here  of  the 
necessity  of  ordination   or   sending  by  the  bishop,    and   of 
"Apostolic   Succession."      But  these  things   are  not  men- 
tioned, not  alluded  to.     If  John  Calvin  himself  had  framed 
the  article,  he  could  not  have  adapted  it  better  to  the  circum- 
stances  of  his  followers.     The  truth  is,  that  Cranmer  and 
others,  who  drew  up  the  articles,  had  very  low  notions  of 
the  Church,   Ministry,  )Sacraments,  &c.     They  had  a  much 
greater  regard  for  the  "  will  and  commmandment  of  princes," 
than    for  any  other  kind  of  authority  that  can  be  named. 
One  of  the  Anglican  bishops,   who  understood  this  matter 
perfectly,  I  mean  Burnet,   makes  a  very  candid  admission 
upon   the  subject,    which  I  commend  to   all  Episcopalians, 
especially  High  Churchmen.     Expounding  this  very  article, 
Burnet  says:   "I  come,  in  the  next  place,  to  consider  the 
second  part  of  this  article,  which  is  the  definition  here  given 
of  those  that  are  lawfully  called  and  sent.     This  is  put  in 
mry  general   words,  far   from  that  magisterial  stiffness  in 
which  some  have  taken  upon  them  to  dictate  in  this  matter. 
The  article  does  not  resolve  this  into  any  particular  constitu- 
tion, but  leaves  the  matter  oj^en  and  at  large  for  such  acci- 
dents as  had  hapj>ened,   and  such   as  might  still  happen. 
They  who  drew  it,  had  the  state  of  the  severed  Chwches  be- 
fore their  eyes  that  had  been  differently  refcn'ined ;  and  al- 
though their  own  had  been  less  forced  to  go  out  of  the  beaten 
path  than  any  other,  yet  they  knew  that  cdl  things  among 
tliemselves  had  not  gone  according  to  those  rides  that  ought  to 
he  sacred  in  regular  times."     {Eocpos.  Art.   23.)     This  is 


LETTER     IX. 


•273 


certainly  very  candid,  boUi  as  to  the  ambiguity  of  the  arti- 
cle and  as  to  the  motives  which  led  to  it.  I  beg  the  reader 
to  note  particularly  the  portion  which  I  have  placed  in  ihthcs. 
'Burnet  wrote  the  lUxtoru  of  the  lirfonnatwn  in  England, 
and  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  secret  springs  and  vul- 
nerable points  of  that  rebellious  inovement.  He  candidly 
acknowledges  that  this  article  was  .«o  framed  as  not  to  deny 
the  claims'of  the  Presbyterian  or  Calvinistic  Churches  of  the 
continent  of  Europe;  and  not  merely  out  of  regard  for 
them,  but  because  things  had  not  gone  according  to  rule  with 
Anglicanism  itself.  This  fully  confirms  not  only  what  I 
have  just  observed  in  regard  to  the  ambiguity  of  the  article, 
but  also  what  I  have  maintained  in  my  previous  letters  in  re- 
gard to  the  disorderly  and  schismatical  character  of  the  so- 
called  "  English  Reformation." 

Your  next  article,  the  24th,  is  directed  against  the  use  of 
the  Latin  language  in  the  service  of  the  Church.     It  is  as 

"  It  is  a  thing  plainly  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God  and 
the  custom  of  the  primitive  Church,  to  have  public  prayer  in 
the  Church,  or  to  minister  the  Sacraments  in  a  tongue  not 
understanded  of  the  people."  r^    ^    ^■ 

Let  us  consider,  first,  how  far  the  practice  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  in  this  respect,  falls  within  the  meaning  of  these 
terms.     That  practice  is  simply  to  use  the  Latin  tongue  in 
the  service  of  the  Mass,  and  in  administering  the  Sacraments. 
In  "public  prayer,"  it  is  not  used,  but  the  vernacular  lan- 
guage of  the  people.     If  you  enter  a  Catholic  Church,  you 
will  hear  public  prayer,  and  the  various  litanies  and  other 
devotions  said  in  the  language  spoken  by  the  people.     But 
although  the  Latin  is  used  in  the  Mass  and  m  the  Sacraments, 
yet  it  ?s  not  liable  to  the  objection  made,   in  its  full  sense. 
In  the  first  place,  these  services  are  not  the  acts  of  the  peo- 
ple   but  of  the  priest.     It  belongs  to  the  priesthood  only  to 
offer  the  Holy  Sacrifice,  and  to  administer  the  Sacraments ; 
and  it  is  sufficient,  if  he  understands  the  language  which  he 
alone  is  to  use.     But  secondly,  while  the  Latin  is  not  only 
used  in  this  limited  extent,  it  can  scarcely  be  called  a  ' '  tongue 
not  understanded  of  the  people,"  in  the  obsolete  language  ot 
the  article.     For  many  of  the  people  understand  the  Latin 
toncue    and  those  who   do  not  understand  it,  have  prayer- 
books  containing   the   Mass  and  other   services   in   English 


274  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN 

as  well  as  Latin,  arranged  in  parallel  columns.  In  this  man- 
ner, even  persons  who  have  never  learned  Latin  grammati- 
cally, become  so  familiar  with  so  much  of  it  as  is  ordinarily 
used  in  the  Church,  as  to  understand  it  quite  well.  These 
remarks  serve  to  show  that  the  objection  to  the  use  of  Latin, 
possesses  little  or  no  force,  so  far  as  the  advantage  of  the 
people  is  concerned.  But  your  article  declares,  "it  is  re- 
pugnant to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  custom  of  the  primitive 
Church."  As  to  the  "  word  of  God,"  your  writers,  Burnet 
and  others,  refer  to  but  one  portion  of  the  Scriptures,  which 
they  allege  to  relate  to  the  point,  and  that  they  misinterj)ret. 
It  is  the  14th  Chapter  of  St.  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians. If  you  will  read  that  Chapter,  you  will  find  in  it 
nothing  pertinent  to  the  question.  The  Apostle  is  there 
treating  of  the  superiority  of  the  gift  of  prophesying,  over 
that  of  tongues,  because  more  edifying  to  the  hearer.  Those 
who  spoke  with  tongues,  spoke  as  inspired  at  the  moment, 
and  in  a  language  utterly  unintelligible  to  the  assembly. 
But  even  that,  St.  Paul  does  not  prohibit,  but  advises  such  per- 
sons to  interpret  what  they  utter,  so  that  others  may  be  edi- 
fied by  the  Divine,  communication.  Thus,  he  says  not  a 
word  about  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  nor  about 
the  ordinary  public  service,  as  performed  by  the  minister  or 
priest,  but  only  the  extemporaneous  and  unintelligible  effu- 
sions uttered  by  private  individuals.  This  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture, therefore,  has  no  bearing  upon  the  question.  Your 
article  further  alleges  that  this  Catholic  practice  is  repugnant 
to  the  "custom  of  the  primative  Church."  This  appeal, 
every  now  and  then,  to  the  "primitive  Church,"  is  quite 
ridiculous.  I  have  already  shewn,  in  my  previous  letters, 
how  little  real  regard  the  founders  of  Anglicanism  had  for 
the  early  Church.  They  were  very  bold  in  professing  to 
appeal  to  her,  but  when  the  appeal  came  to  be  made,  they 
shrunk  from  the  test,  as  Keble  admits,  with  a  "  vagxie 
suspicion  of  interpolation."  But  it  is  not  true,  that  this 
practice  is  repugnant  to  ancient  custom.  It  can  be  proved 
by  the  clearest  evidence,  that  the  service  of  the  altar  and 
other  offices  of  the  Church,  were  said  in  Latin,  in  various 
countries  in  which  that  language  was  not  understood  by  the 
people.  This  was  particularly  the  ease  in  England,  after  the 
sixth  centin-y,  if  not  before.  And  the  Latin  continued  to  be 
used  in  the  litany,  in  that  country,  until  the  schism  of  Henry 


L  K  T  T  E  R     IX.  275 

VIII.  The  usage  of  the  English  Church,  for  nearly  a  thou- 
sand years,  ought  to  have  more  weight  than  any  mere  modern 
declaration  of  your  Thirty-Nine  Articles.  This  custom  is 
not  peculiar  to  the  Catholic  Church.  Thet)riental  sects,  for 
which  some  of  your  divines  profess  so  much  regard,  such  as 
the  Armenians,  Syrians,  Nestorians,  perform  their  liturgical 
services  in  the  ancient  Greek,  and  not  in  the  modern  tongues 
of  the  people.  The  Russians  do  the  same.  It  may  do  well 
enough  for  your  Church,  which  is  only  of  3'csterday,  and 
which  has  little  to  do  with  any  other  people  than  those  who 
speak  Engli.><li,  to  put  forth  a  little  cant  upon  this  subject. 
But  the  (.'hurch  of  all  ages,  and  of  all  nations  and  tongues, 
finds  the  need  and  the  advantage  of  one  fixed,  universal  lan- 
guage, for  the  altar,  that  priests  and  people,  wherever  they 
may  be,  may  participate  in  the  same  worship  to  which  they 
have  been  accustomed.  The  Latin  language,  was,  in  the 
early  ages,  the  language  of  the  Roman  empire.  And  while 
thus  general,  the  services  of  the  Church  were  composed  in  it. 
These  services  have  been  handed  down  from  generation  to 
generation,  in  the  same  tongue  ;  thus,  preserving  for  us,  the 
doctrines  of  the  ancient  Church,  in  the  very  same  words  used 
in  the  beginning.  In  this  way,  she  avoids  also  the  inconve- 
niences which  would  result  from  the  constant  changes  to 
which  all  modern  languages  are  subject.  Of  these  changes, 
your  Prayer-Book  already  presents  not  a  few  outlandish 
specimens ;  one  of  which  is  seen  in  the  very  article  before 
us,  in  which  the  now  obsolete  form  of  iinderstandcd  is  used, 
instead  of  understood. 

But,  I  have  occupied  more  time  in  refuting  the  objection, 
than  it  deserves.  It  is  at  best,  a  very  trivial  one.  But  let 
me  mention  as  an  off'set  to  it,  a  historical  fact,  bearing  upon 
the  subject.  Under  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  Connuon  Prayer 
was  allowed  to  be  said  in  "Latin,  in  such  Church  or  place 
where  the  minister  had  not  the  knowledge  of  the  English 
tongue."  At  the  same  time,  in  Ireland,  Common  Prayer 
was  said  in  English,  and  the  Irish  people  who  then  knew  not 
a  word  of  English  were  compelled  under  severe  penalties  to 
be  present.  All  this  you  will  find  related  by  Dr.  Heylin,  an 
Anglican,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation.  Thus,  while 
Anglicanism  was  proclaiming  in  her  Thirty-Nine  Articles, 
that  to  have  ' '  public  prayer  in  a  language  not  understood  by 
the  people,  was  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,"  &c.,  she  was 
24* 


276  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

doing  this  very  thing,  literally  and  truly,  among  the  poor 
oppressed  Irish  !     So  much  for  her  sincerity.* 

A.  B. 

*  The  conduct  of  Anglicanism  towards  the  Irish,  has  ever  since  been, 
marked  by  injustice  and  cruelty.  Although  not  more  than  about  one- 
tenth  of  the  people  of  Ireland  are  attached  to  that  system,  yet  it  is 
made  the  established  Church  of  the  country,  and  the  poor  Catholics, 
who  constitute  the  mass  of  the  inhabitants,  are  compelled  to  contri- 
bute enormous  sums  to  support  the  bishops  and  parsons  of  Anglican- 
ism !  This  enormous  outrage  has  not  failed  to  call  forth  indignant 
protests  even  from  Protestants.  In  the  North  Amerieayi  Review  (Janu- 
ary, 1858)  may  be  found  an  able  exposure  of  this  great  wrong,  from 
which  I  quote  the  following  passage  : 

"  The  late  Mr.  Hume  described  the  Establishment,  in  one  of  his  Par- 
liamentary speeches  in  favor  of  its  abolition,  as  the  "blood-besmeared 
Church  of  'Rathcormack  ;'  "  Mr.  Roebuck  characterized  it  in  the  same 
place  as  "the  greatest  ecclesiastical  enormity  in  Europe;"  and  Mr. 
(now  Baron)  Macaulay,  as  "  the  most  utterly  absurd  and  indefensible  of 
all  the  institutions  now  existing  in  the  civilized  world.'" — From  a  work 
recently  published  in  England,  called  "The  Black  Book,"  on  the  Eng- 
lish aristocratic  system,  a  work  quoted  by  Goodrich  in  the  History  of 
all  nations,  we  subjoin  one  or  two  extracts  on  the  same  subject. 

"From  another  Parliamenttirj'  return,  it  is  proved,  as  stated  in  the 
House  of  Commons  by  Captain  Osborne,  that  eleven  Irish  state  bishops 
left  behind  them  amassed  Avealth  to  the  amount  of  nine  million  three 
hundred  and  seventy-five  thousand  dollars,  acx'umulated  within  a 
period  of  from  forty  to  fifty  years." 


LETTER    X. 

Thirty-second  Article  examined. — Celibacy  of  the  Clergy  discussed. — 
Teachings  of  Scripture  upon  the  subject. — Example  of  the  Apostles 
and  first  Jlinisters. — Ancient  Canons. — Admissions  of  Burnet,  Short 
and  Ilalliun.— Thirty-third  Article  examined. — Asserts  the  right  of 
Excommunication. — Confirms  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Ca- 
tholic Church. — But  practically  vague  and  inoperative  among  Pro- 
testants.— Condemns  the  auliiors  of  the  English  Schism. — Thirty- 
fourth  Article  examined. — This  also  condemns  Anglicanism. — A 
National  Church  subordinate  to  the  Church-Catholic. — Thirty-fifth 
Article. — Homilies. -=— Their  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Articles. — 
Thirty-sixth  Article. — Differs  from  the  English  Prayer-Book. — 
Anglican  Ordinations. — Treated  as  null  by  the  Catholic  Church. — 
Why  so  treated. — Ordination  services  borrowed  in  part  from  the 
Roman  Pontifical. — Other  services. — English  book  contains  four 
additional  Forms. — Gunpowder  plot. — The  result  of  persecution. — 
Not  chargeable  to  the  Catholic  religion. — Protestant  gunpowder 
plots. — Service  for  King  Charles. — Two  other  services  for  the  royal 
family. — King's  "Healing  Service." 

My  Dear  Friend  : 

The  next  seven  articles,  from  the  twenty-fifth  to  tlie  thu'ty- 
first  inclusive,  have  reference  to  the  Sacraments,  anil  embrace 
very  little  but  what  I  have  already  discussed,  as  far  as  my 
limits  will  permit. 

The  thirty-second  article  is  entitled,  "^  Of  the  Marriage  of 
Priests."  It  declares  :  "  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,  are 
not  commanded  by  God's  law  either  to  vow  the  estate  of  sin- 
gle life,  or  to  abstain  from  marriage  ;  therefore,  it  is  lawful 
for  them,  a.s  for  all  other  Christian  men,  to  marry  at  their 
own  discretion,  as  they  shall  judge  the  same  to  serve  better 
to  godliness." 

The  first  part  of  this  article  asserts,  that  the  clergy  are 
"not  commanded  by  GocVs  law"  to  abstain  from  marriage. 
If,  by  God's  law,  it  is  meant  an  crj)ress  laic  of  the  Scriptures, 
I  admit  the  tryth  of  the  assertion.  No  one  maintains  that 
the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  is  explicitly  commanded  in  the  Bi- 
ble. But  I  deny  the  inference  contained  in  the  second  part 
of  the  article.  That  inference  is  false,  both  logically  and 
theologically.  The  article  argues,  that  because  the  marriage 
of  ministers  is  not  forbidden  by  the  law  of  God,  therefore  it 
is  lawful.     This  reasoning  is  manifestly  false.     Is  everything 

(277) 


278  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

not  expressly  forbidden  by  the  law  of  God  lawful  ?  Certain- 
ly not.  The  law  of  God  does  not  expressly  forbid  gambling 
and  theatrical  representations.  Yet,  these  things  are  gener- 
ally condemned  by  Protestants.  In  the  Canons  or  rules  of 
discipline,  of  the  various  Protestant  denominations,  including 
your  own,  there  are  many  things  forbidden  to  the  clergy,  if 
not  to  the  laity,  which  are  not  expressly  forbidden  in  the  law 
of  God.  It  is  just  so  with  regard  to  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy.  It  is  a  rule  of  discipline,  it  is  a  law  of  the  Church. 
It  is  founded  upon  the  principle,  that  the  ministers  of  God 
should  be  wholly  devoted  to  the  sacred  office,  and  not  be  dis- 
tracted by  the  cares  of  a  family.  St.  Paul  himself  says 
enough  to  justify  this  princijDle,  "  He  that  is  unmarried,"  he 
says,  "  careth  for  the  things  that  belong  to  the  Lord,  how  he 
may  please  the  Lord  :  But  he  that  is  married  careth  for  the 
things  of  the  world,  how  he  may  please  his  wife."  (1  Cor. 
vii.  32,  33.)  In  this  way,  St.  Paul  argues  the  advantage  of 
a  single  life,  even  for  lay  persons,  who  wished  to  be  entirely 
given  up  to  God.  How  much  stronger  is  the  argument  in 
respect  to  the  clergy.  How  far  such  a  rule  is  necessary  for 
Protestant  ministers,  I  have  nothing  to  say.  Their  office  is 
very  different  from  that  of  Catholic  priests.  The  latter  are 
not  only  more  incessantly  employed  in  their  vocation,  but  they 
have  daily  to  consecrate  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and 
to  offer  the  Holy  Sacrifice  of  the  Altar.  Hence,  it  is  the 
more  important,  that  they  should  be  free  fi.-om  family  cares 
and  distractions,  and  from  every  stain  of  sensual  indulgence. 
For  these  reasons  the  marriage  of  priests  after  ordination 
has,  from  the  earliest  times,  been  forbidden  in  the  Church, 
in  accordance  with  the  principle  laid  down  by  St.  Paul  in  the 
passage  above  cited.  I  know  there  are  passages  in  the  Scrip- 
tures which  are  often  quoted  as  proving  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy  in  Apostolic  times.  These  passages  speak  of  the  wives 
and  children  of  the  clergy,  but  they  are  susceptible  of  an 
easy  explanation.*     In  the  infancy  of  the  Church,  such  was 

*It  would  occupj-  too  much  space  to  e.xamine  all  the  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture, which  are  sometimes  quoted  by  the  frieuds  of  clerical  marriage, 
but  I  must  give  a  brief  notice  of  those  passages  in  St.  Paul's  first  Epis- 
tle to  Timothy,  in  which  it  is  required  that  bishops  and  deacons  be  the 
husbarid  of  one  wife.  Now,  this  expression,  according  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  antiquitj',  and  of  some  of  j'our  own  authorities,  particularly 
Bloomfield,  simply  means  a  man  who  has  been  married  but  once,  has 
had  but  one  wife.     It  cannot  be  intended  to  prohibit  polygamy,  since 


L  E  T  T  K  R     X  .  279 

the  doiiKind  for  luini.ster.s,  that  there  was  no  time  to  traiu 
youug  aud  single  men  for  the  ecclesiastical  state,  and  the 
Apostles  had  to  select  men  of  a  sedate  and  mature  character, 
even  though  they  were  married  and  had  children.  After 
ordination,  they  either  separated  from  their  wives,  or  lived 
with  them  as  with  sisters.  This,  also,  is  true  of  such  of  the 
Apostles  as  were  married  when  called  to  the  ministry-.  This 
is  not  a  more  conjecture  devised  to  meet  an  objection ;  it 
is  an  historical  fact  well  attested  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient 
fathers.  Thus,  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  in  the 
second  centur}-,  consequently,  very  soon  after  the  Apostles, 
says  the  Apostles  "  took  their  wives  about  with  them,  not  as 
wives  but  as  sisters,  that  they  might  minister  to  those  who 
were  mistresses  of  families."  {Strom,  lib.  3.)  This  passage 
must  be  understood,  however,  of  only  some  of  the  Apostles. 
St.  Paul  plainly  tells  us,  that  he  himself  was  unmarried. 
And,  if  some  of  the  Apostles  had  wives  at  the  time  of  their 
call  to  the  ministry,  as  St.  Peter,  they  evidently  ceased  to 
cohabit  with  them.  St.  Jerome,  (Hierome)  who  flourished 
in  the  fom-th  century,  wrote  as  follows  upon  this  subject : 
"According  to  this  regulation,  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles, 
indeed,  (that  I  may  for  the  present  concede  more  than  is  re- 
quired) had  wives ;  but  they  had  taken  them  at  a  time  when 
they  knew  not  the  Cospel.  Upon  being  afterwards  elevated 
to  the  Apostleship,  they  relinquished  the  conjugal  privileges. 
For,  when  Peter,  in-the  person  of  all  the  Apostles,  saith  to 
the  Lord — '  Behold  we  have  left  all  things,  and  have  followed 
Thee' — the  Lord  answered  him — '  Every  one  that  hath  for- 

tbat  was  not  allowed  to  the  laity.  A  similar  expression  is  found  in 
the  ninth  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  this  same  Epistle,  where  among 
the  qualifications  of  the  widow  we  read,  having  been  the  icife  of  one 
vian.  These  expressions  are  all  explained  by  the  well  known  fact, 
that  the  primitive  Church  discountenanced  second  marriages  in  gen- 
eral, and  positively  prohibited  them  in  those  selected  for  the  clerical 
ranks.  This  can  be  readily  proved  from  jour  own  writers.  Thus, 
Henry,  in  his  Christian  Antiquities ^  says; — ''In  regard  to  bigamy,  it 
was  an  Apostolical  rule  that  a  liishop  or  a  deacon  should  be  one  who 
was  the  husband  of  one  wife  only.  All  the  ancient  laws  of  the  Church 
were  founded  upon  this  rule  ;  but  there  was  a  diflerence  of  opinion 
and  practice  in  the  interpretation  of  it.  It  was  a  very  prevailing 
opinion,  that  by  it  all  persons  were  precluded  from  sacred  Orders,  who 
after  baptism,  had  been  even  legally  married  to  two  wives  in  succes- 
sion.' (?  6T.)  Burnet  also  testifies  to  the  same  custom.  ''They 
did  not,"  he  saj-s,  "admit  a  man  to  Orders  who  had  been  twice  mar- 
ried.''    (Exposition,  Art.  32.) 


280  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Saken  houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or 
wife,  or  children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive 
a  hundred  fold,  and  shall  inherit  everlasting  life.'  (^Tom.  3 
lib.  1,  adv.  Jovin.')  In  another  place,  this  father  says  of 
the  early  Church,  "  The  Apostles  were  either  virgins,  or  men 
who,  after  marriage,  became  continent ;  and  the  persons  now 
chosen  for  bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  are  either  virgins  or 
widowers,  or  at  least,  men  who  remain  chaste  ever  after  they 
have  been  admitted  to  the  priesthood."  Qhid.  AjxAog.  pro 
libris  adv.  Jov.')  Now,  these  passages  not  only  show  that 
celibacy  was  the  rule  in  the  fourth  century,  but  that  those 
passages  of  the  Scriptures,  in  which  the  Apostles  or  clergy 
are  spoken  of  as  married,  are  to  be  understood  in  accordance 
with  the  principle  which  the  Catholic  Church  now  acts  upon, 
that  is,  of  continence  after  ordination.^  Your  Church,  in  her 
sixth  article,  appeals  to  this  father  as  to  the  Canon  of  the 
Scriptures ;  but  if  she  really  recognizes  his  authority,  why 
does  she  set  at  nought  his  express  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy.  It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  set 
before  you  a  long  list  of  passages  from  other  ancient  fa- 
thers, to  prove  that  celibacy  was  the  law  of  the  Church 
for  the  clergy  in  their  day,  and  from  the  primitive  times. 
But,  it  is  my  plan  in  these  letters,  to  prove  my  points  main- 
ly from  the  admissions  of  your  own  writers,  and  if  at  any  time 
I  appeal  to  ancient  documents,  I  "cite  them  chiefly  as  found 
in  books  or  collections  made  by  your  own  divines.  The  lat- 
ter I  am  now  about  to  do.  The  opinion  is  very  boldly  put 
forth  among  you,  and  even  by  some  of  your  clergy,  who 
ought  to  know  better,  that  the  ecclesiastical  law  of  celibacy 
is  quite  a  modern  regulation,  and  utterly  unknown  in  the 
"primitive  Church."  I  will  show  you  the  contrary.  I  will 
show  you  that  marriage,  after  ordination,  has  been  forbidden 
to  the  clergy  by  the  Canons  of  the  Church  from  ancient  times. 
Let  us  refer  to  that  collection  of  ancient  Canons  ruade  by  an 
Anglican  clergyman,  and  from  which  I  have  already  had  oc- 
casion to  quote.     Among  the  Canons  enacted  by  the  first 


*  Hear  the  strong  language  which  St.  Jerome  addresses  to  Jovinia- 
nus,  in  the  work  first  cited  above — "You  confess,  at  least,  that  he  can- 
not be  a  bishop  who  begets  children  during  his  episcopacy.  Or,  in 
other  words,  tljat  if  he  be  detected  he  shall  not  be  regarded* as  a  man, 
but  condemned  as  an  adulterer."  Such  was  the  discipline  of  the 
"primitive  Church"  in  regard  to  bishops. 


LETTKU     X.  281 

General  Council,  that  of  Nic-o,  by  mIiIcIi  the  Creed  in  your 
Prayer-Book  was  in  part  framed,  you  will  find  the  following: 
"  The  great  Synod  altogether  forbids  any  Bishop,  Presby- 
ter or  Deacon,  or  any  one  of  the  clergy,*  to  have  a  woman 
dwelling  with  him,  excepting  a  mother  or  sister,  or  such  per- 
sons only  as  are  above  all  suspicion."  {HcDnmond^s  Def.  of 
Faith,  p.  3;3.) 

This  Canon  furnishes  a  negative  argument  in  favor  of  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy,  because  in  forbidding  them  to  have 
any  woman  dwelling  with  them,  there  is  no  exception  made 
in  fovor  of  a  wife. 

Among  the  Canons  passed  by  the  fourth  General  Council 
held  at  Chalcedon,  the  fourteenth  begins  with  this  sentence  : 

"Since  in  some  Provinces  it  is  allowed  to  the  Readers  and 
Singers  to  marry,  the  holy  Sjnod  lias  determined  that  it  shall 
not  be  lawful  for  any  of  them  to  marry  a  woman  of  heterodox 
opinions."     {Idem,  p.  109.) 

The  officers  here  mentioned,  "  Readers  and  Singers"  were 
inferior  orders  below  that  of  Deacon,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
read  the  Scriptures  and  attend  to  the  Psalmody,  but  as  they 
were  not  ordained  like  the  higher  orders,  they  did  not  per- 
form any  priestly  function.  The  language  here  used  respect- 
ing them,  that  is,  that  they  were  allowed  to  marry  in  some 
of  the  Provinces,  plainly  implies  that  in  other  Provinces  they 
were  not  allowed  to  marry.  And,  if  marriage  was  not  al- 
lowed to  these  inferior  officers  in  some  parts  of  the  Church, 
how  much  less  must  it  have  been  allowed  to  those  who  were 
in  orders  ? 

But,  I  will  now  cite  a  Canon  of  a  more  positive  character. 
In  the  year  315  a  Synod  was  held  at  Neocaessarea,  ten  years 
before  the  Council  of  Nice.  Tlie  first  Canon  passed  by  that 
Synod,  declares  as  follows  : 

"If  a  Presbyter  marry,  let  him  be  removed  from  his 
order."     (Idem,  p.  158.) 

No  ingenuity  can  evade  the  force  of  this  clear  and  positive 
decree.  And  this  was  a  law  of  the  Universal  Church.  The 
Canons  of  this  Synod,  as  Hammond  says,  (p.  148)  were  re- 
ceived into  the  code  of  the  Church  at  large,  and  were  after- 
wards expressly  sanctioned  by  the  fourth  General  Council. 

*  This  expression  is  explained  by  the  fact,  that  in  the  early  Church 
there  were  various  inferior  officers  below  that  of  Deacdri,  some  of  which 
were  included  amonjr  the  "  Clergy." 


282  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

It  is  thus  proved  beyoad  contradiction,  that  in  tlie  "primi- 
tive Church"  it  was  a  universal  hiw  that  Presbyters  sliould 
not  marry.  Now,  my  friend,  your  Church  and  your  divines 
sometimes  express  great  veneration  for  the  ' '  primitive 
Church."  If  they  really  feel  this  veneration,  why  have  they 
set  at  naught  that  ancient  prohibition,  and  placed  among 
their  Thirty-Nine  Articles  an  assertion  which  is  contrary  to 
the  law  and  usage -of  antiquity?  The  article  before  us  as- 
serts, that  it  is  lawful  for  priests  to  marry.  Is  it  lawful  then 
to  violate  the  Canons  of  the  Primitive  Church,  Canons  re- 
ceived by  the  Universal  Church,  Canons  held  sacred  by  the 
Catholic  Church  for  fifteen  hundred  years '!  If  one  of  your 
clergy  breaks  a  Canon,  passed  by  your  own  little  communion 
only  yesterday,  you  depose  him  from  his  order.  Yet,  you 
violate,  without  remorse  or  the  least  concern,  this  ancient  law 
of  the  Universal  Church,  and  at  the  same  time  assert,  that 
your  Church  is  constituted  according  to  the  primitive  model, 
and  that  it  is  a  "  branch"  of  the  "  Universal  Church  I"* 

This  ancient  law  was,  of  course,  in  force  in  England  at  the 
time  of  the  so-called  Reformation,  and  Cranmer  and  other 
Anglican  bishops  by  violating  it,  justly  incurred  deposition. 

Having  shown  by  indisputable  evidence,  that  the  law  of 
the  early  Church  was  against  the  marriage  of  priests,  I  might 
here  quit  the  subject.  But,  in  confirmation  of  my  position, 
I  will  first  place  before  you  a  few  admissions  made  by  Pro- 
testant divines  and  historians  in  reference  to  the  matter.  I 
hope  you  understand  exactly  my  position.  It  is,  that  the 
Canon  law  of  the  whole  Church,  from  the  earliest  times  down 
to  the  sixteenth  century,  forbid  the  marriage  of  the  clergy 

■•••  It  would  be  easy  to  cite  the  Canons  of  other  early  Councils  against 
the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  but  I  desire  to  prove  the  jioint  from  au- 
thorities recognized  by  Protestants.  I  might  cite,  particularly,  the 
second  Canon  of  the  second  Council  of  Carthage,  which  enjoins  conti- 
nence upon  bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  as  an  order  received  from  the 
Apostles.  There  was,  also,  a  Canon  passed  by  the  Council  of  Eliberis, 
in  Spain,  held  in  the  year  305,  which  I  must  quote,  at  least,  in  the  ori- 
ginal Latin.  It  is  clear  and  positive,  and  throws  much  light  on  this 
whole  subject.  It  is  the  thirty-third  Canon  of  that  Council,  and  reads 
as  follows : 

"Placuitiu  totum  prohil)ere  Episcopis,  Presbyteris,  Diaconibus  ct 
Sub-diaconibus  positis  in  ministerio  abstinere  se  a  conjugibus  suis  et 
non  generare  filios  :  quicunciue  vcro  fccerit,  ab  honore  clericatus  ex- 
terminatur."     '• 

This  canon,  applies,  of  course,  to  such  as  had  been  married  before 
ordination,  and  confirms  what  I  have  stated  above  upon  that  point. 


L  K  T  r  K  u     x  .  "IH'S 

after  ordination.  You  may  tiud  mention  made  within  that 
period,  of  clergymen  who  had  been  married,  just  a.s  you  do  in 
the  Scriptures;  but  they  were  married  before  ordination,  and 
after  ordination  did  not  live  as  married  men.  Similar  instan- 
ces may  be  found  in  the  Catholic  Church  at  this  time.  But 
not  a  single  instance  of  the  marriage  of  a  clergyman,  after 
ordination,  allowed  by  the  Church,  can  be  found  between  the 
first  century  and  the  sixteenth.  Let  mo  now  show  you  what 
your  own  writers  have  been  compelled  to  admit  upon  the 
subject.  Bishop  Short  allows  that  celibacy  Avas  the  law  of 
the  English  Church,  from  the  time  of  Augustine,  by  whom 
the  see  of  Canterbury  was  fii-st  established,  until  the  sixteenth 
century.  "  The  answers  of  Gregory,"  he  saj-s,  "to  Augus- 
tine, imply  that  the  regulations  of  the  Roman  Church,  had 
been  made  in  England,  from  the  very  first."  (^Ifist.  of  Ch.  of 
Eng.  §22.)  From  this,  it  is  plain,  that  the  founders  of 
Anglicanism,  in  allowing  the  clergy  to  marry,  acted  contrary 
to  what  had  been  the  law  of  the  Church  in  their  country,  from 
its  very  foundation. 

In  regard  to  the  ancient  practice,  hear  wliat  Bishop  Burnet 
admits  in  his  exposition  of  the  very  article  before  us.  Al- 
though as  an  Anglican,  a  strenuous  advocate  for  the  "  liberty" 
allowed  by  the  Articles,  yet  he  is  forced  to  grant  as  to  the 
historical  aspect  of  the  fj[uestion — "  There  are  some  instances 
brought  of  bishops  and  priests  who  are  supposed  to  have 
married  after  they  were  ordained  ;  but  as  there  are  only  few 
of  these,  so,  perhaps,  they  are  not  well  proved.  It  must  be 
acknowledged  that  the  general  practice  was  that  men  once 
in  orders,  did  not  marry."    {Expos,  of.  39  Art.') 

Every  candid  person  will  not  fail  to  recognise,  in  this  ad- 
mission of  the  renowned  expositor  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Arti- 
cles, a  complete  surrender  of  the  case,  so  far  as  the  historical 
evidence  is  concerned.  Although  urged  by  a  strong  desire 
to  prove  his  position,  the  most  he  can  say  is  that  there  are 
some  supposed  instances  brought  of  marriage  after  ordina- 
tion, and  that  these  supposed  instances  are  few,  and  per- 
haps not  icell  proved.  This  is  equal  to  saying  there  are  no 
well-estabhshed  instances  of  the  marriage  of  persons  in  orders. 
And  the  inference  is,  not  merely  that  celibacy  was  the 
''general  practice,"  as  Burnet  admits,  but  that  it  was  the 
universal  practice ;  for  if  it  had  not  been,  there  surely  would 
have  been  no  difficulty  in  finding  well-attested  instances  of 
clerical  marriage. 
25 


•284:  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

To  the  admission  of  Burnet,  let  me  add  the  testimony  of 
another  distinguished  English  Protestant,  the  learned  Hallam, 
whose  authority  is  unquestionable  in  historical  matters.  He 
declares,  respecting  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  that  "  not  a 
single  lawful  precedent  has  ever  been  produced  for  it,  from 
St.  Paul  to  Luther,  except  under  the  modification  of  the  Greek 
Chm-ch."*  (Middle  Ages,  vol.  3,  p.  53.)  Testimony  so  strong 
from  such  a  soiu-ce,  ought  to  be  decisive  with  any  candid 
mind. 

By  the  foregoing  admissions  of  two  Anglican  Bishops, 
Biu'net  and  Short,  and  of  a  learned  Protestant  historian,  the 
truth  of  my  position  is  clearly  established,  that  the  law  of 
the  Church,  from  the  earliest  period,  has  always  and  univer- 
sally prohibited  the  marriage  of  persons  in  orders.  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  the  doctrine  of  clerical  celibacy,  is, 
not  a  modern  innovation,  as  Protestants  generally  suppose. 
And  it  is  not  the  Catholic,  but  the  Protestant,  who  in  this 
as  in  other  things  departs  from  ancient  and  established  usage 
and  law.f 

I  have  already  alluded  to  the  argument  in  favor  of  celibacy, 
drawn  from  the  fitness  of  things.  That  this  is  not  imaginary, 
I  am  able  to  show  you  by  your  own  standard  writings.  A 
passage  in  point  I  have  already  cjuoted  from  your  Homilies 

■•■■  111  the  Greek  Church,  persons  ah-eady  married  may  be  admitted  to 
orders:  but  the  clergy  are  not  allowed  to  marry  after  ordination. 
Bishops  must  inA-ariably  be  single  men. 

f  It  can  hardly  be  necessary  for  me  to  state,  that  while  the  canon- 
law  of  the  Church,  recpires  the  clergy  to  abstain  from  marriage,  it 
also,  requires  them  to  lead  a  pure  and  chaste  life.  If  scandals  hare 
been  given  by  members  of  that  order,  it  has  not  been  owing  to  the 
want  of  rigid  regulations  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  nor  owing  to  their 
leading  a  single  life.  Why  the  single  life  of  the  Catholic  priest  should 
give  rise  to  so  much  suspicion  and  accusation  in  the  Protestant 
mind,  it  is  difficult  to  tell.  There  are  thousands  of  Protestants 
of  both  sexes,  leading  a  single  life,  from  some  motive  or  other.  Do 
these  persons  live  virtuously,  or  do  they  not  ?  You  will  hardly  saj- 
they  do  not ;  and  if  the_y  do,  wh}-  should  not  the  man  who  has  volun- 
tarily chosen  that  life  that  he  may  the  more  entirely  serve  God,  live 
virtuously  lilcewise  ?  The  suspicion  to  which  I  allude  is  equally  unrea- 
sonable aud  ungenerous,  and  it  is,  doubtless,  generally  the  offspring 
of  an  impure  imagination.  But  if  marriage  is  a  preventive  of  clerical 
immorality,  Avhy  does  it  not  exhibit  its  salutary  power  among  the 
Protestant  sects  ?  The  public  journals,  almost  every  day  announce 
some  new  case  of  scandal  among  Protestant  ministers.  And  in  all,  or 
nearly  all  these  cases,  the  clerical  delinquents  are  married-men  ;  which 
proves,  conclusively,  that  marriage  affords  no  guarantee  in  favor  of 
chastity. 


"^  LKTTERX.  285 

in  connection  ■^'itli  the  marriage-service  of  your  rrayor-Book. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  it  licrc.  But  I  will  add  another 
(]uotatiou  from  Burnet's  exposition  of  the  article  before  us. 
This  champion  of  Anglicanism,  after  exliausting  all  his  pow- 
ers in  defence  of  clerical  matrimony,  is  at  length  compelled 
to  admit : 

"  Yet,  after  all,  though  they  who  mamj,  do  icdl,  yet  those 
icJio  marry  not,  do  Letter — provided  thoy  live  chaste  and  do 
not  burn.  That  man  who  subdues  his  body  by  fasting  and 
prayer,  by  labor  and  study,  and  that  separates  himself  from 
the  concerns  of  a  fomily,  that  he  may  give  himself  wholly  to 
the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  to  pra3'er,  that  lives  at  a  dis- 
tance from  the  Levites  of  the  world,  and  in  a  course  of  native 
modesty  and  unaffected  severity,  is  certainly  a  burning  and 
shining  light — he  is  above  the  world,  free  from  cares  and 
designs,  from  aspirings  and  all  those  restless  projects  which 
have  so  long  given  to  the  world  so  much  scandal."  On  the 
next  page,  he  says :  ' '  It  is  certain  that  every  man  who  dedi- 
cates himself  to  the  service  of  God,  ought  to  try  if  he  can 
dedicate  himself  so  entu-ely  to  it,  as  to  live  out  of  all  the  con- 
cerns and  entanglements  of  life.  If  he  can  maintain  his 
purity  in  it,  he  will  be  enabled  thcrebj'  to  labor  the  more 
effectually,  and  may  expect  both  the  greater  success  here,  and 
a  fuller  reward  hereafter."  If  such  be  the  case,  there  is  surely 
sufficient  reason  for  re(|uiring  the  clergy  to  lead  a  single  life. 
I  need  not  say,  that  among  you,  at  present,  the  benefits  of 
such  a  life  as  admitted  by  Burnet  himself,  are  entirely  over- 
looked. Who  ever  heard  of  one  of  your  clergymen  leading 
a  single  life,  from  such  a  motive  ?  No,  no  ;  such  acts  of  self- 
denial  are  left  for  Catholic  priests.  Your  own  divines  of  a 
former  day,  although  denying  the  oUlr/ation  of  celibacy,  had 
not  altogether  lost  sight  of  its  excellence  and  fitness,  and  were 
not  ashamed  to  praise  and  commend  it.  But  what  a  falling  off 
do  we  now  behold  among  you.  Your  teachera  of  the  present 
day  either  preserve  an  ominous  silence  upon  the  subject,  or 
allude  to  it  in  terms  of  reproach  and  censure.  Bishop  liurnet, 
whose  words  I  have  just  cited,  wrote  only  about  a  century 
and  a  half  ago,  and  yet  these  salutary  sentiments  have  al- 
ready died  out  among  you  !  Such  is  the  tendency  of  Protest- 
antism.     Facdis  descensus  Averni. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  next  Article,  which  is  the  33d.     It 
reads  as  follows  : 


286  LKTTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

••  That  person  whicli  by  open  denunciation  of  the  Chui'cb, 
is  rightly  cut  off  from  the  unity  of  the  Church  and  excom- 
municated, ought  to  be  taken  of  the  whole  multitude  of  the 
faithfid  as  an  Heathen  and  Publican,  until  he  be  openly 
reconciled  by  penance,  and  received  into  the  Church  by  a 
Judge  that  hath  authority  thereunto." 

The  abstract  doctrine  here  laid  down  is  sound  and  whole- 
some ;  although  it  is,  doubtless,  too  strong  for  the  members 
of  your  communion  at  the  present  day.  It  is,  indeed,  just 
what  the  Catholic  Church  teaches  upon  the  subject ;  and  if  it 
had  been  presented  to  you  simply  as  one  of  her  rules,  you 
would  probably  have  indignantly  rejected  it  as  harsh,  tyran- 
nical and  intolerant,  and  unsuited  to  this  age  of  religious 
freedom.  This  article  recognizes  the  right  of  the  Church  to 
denounce  and  excommunicate  offenders.  Secondly,  it  teaches 
that  any  person  so  excommunicated,  should  be  regarded  as  a 
heathen  and  publican.  Thirdly,  it  declares  that  such  excom- 
munication is  to  continue  until  the  offender  is  ' '  reconciled  by 
penance,"  and  the  authorized  Judge.  I  wish  you  to  notice 
its  characteristics  as  embraced  under  these  heads,  since  in 
all  these  points  it  confirms  the  teaching  and  the  practice  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  I  wish  you  particularly  to  notice  that 
it  teaches  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  j^cnance,  of  reconciliation 
hy  penance  ;  a  doctrine  so  much  resisted  and  even  ridiculed 
by  your  members  generally.  The  idea  of  diOmg  penancii  for 
sin,  is  regarded  among  you  as  the  very  quintessence  of 
Popery,  and  destructive  of  the  "gospel  plan  of  salvation." 
But  there  it  is  in  your  Prayer-Book,  although  you  may  never 
before  have  even  dreamed  of  its  being  there,  so  little  do 
many  of  you  know  what  your  Prayer-Book  really  contains, 
and  so  few  of  your  clergy  ever  bring  before  you  truths  whicli 
have  so  much  of  the  Popish  ring. 

But  however  sound  and  true  maybe  the  doctrine  in  general 
set  forth  in  this  article,  yet  for  any  practical  use  or  applica- 
tion of  it  among  you,  there  is  a  singular  w^nt  of  clearness  in 
its  statement.  For  instance,  what  is  meant  by  "  open  de- 
nunciation of  the  Church  ?"  Does  '  •  the  Church"  here  mean 
the  "congregation  of  faithful  men,"  which  another  article 
defines  to  be  the  "Visible  Church?"  And  how  is  this 
"  denunciation"  to  be  made  ?  Is  it  to  be  done  by  the  entire 
Church  or  congregation  ?  Or  is  it  to  be  done  by  the  minister 
or  bishop  ?  And  again  :  who  is  to  prescribe  the  pe»rt??ce  for 
the  offender, — its  quality  and  duration?     Who  is  to  receive 


1,  K  T  T  K  U     X 


287 


hiui  back  after  said  ponanee  has  been  poifonneil  ?     The  arti- 
cle says,    "  a  Judge  that  hath  authority  thereunto."     But 
who  is  this  Judge  ?     Is  there  any  such  officer  among  you  ? 
Now,  let  me  ask,  did  you  over  know  the  doctrine  laid 
down  in  this  article  to  be  carried  out  among  you  ?     There 
have  been  wicked  men  among  you,  and  teachers  of  error. 
Were  any   of  them  ever  excommunicated  ?      Did  you  ever 
know  one  of  yc^n'  members   to  have  a  prnnncc  prescribed 
him?     The  fact  is,  my  friend,  that  this  doctrine,  like  some 
other  Catholic  truths   found  in  the  Prayer-Book,  is  entirely 
out  of  place  in  your  Protestant  system.     The  power  of  ex- 
communication, making  the  Christian  as  a  heathen,  is  one  of 
solemn  and  immense  responsibility,  and  cannot  be  consistently 
exercised  by  any  denomination    which    acknowledges    itself 
fallible.     It  is  therefore  perfectly  natural  that  your  (!?hurch 
should  never  venture  to  exercise  this  extreme  measure  of  dis- 
cipline.    But  the  doctrine  of  this  article  is  not  only  out  of 
place  among  you,  it  is  also  self-condemnatory — it  pronounces 
your  own  condemnation.      The   power  of  excommunication 
which  it  ascribes  to  the  Church,  was  exercised  against  the 
authors  of   the   English  schism,  in   the   sixteenth  century. 
When  Queen  Elizabeth  drove  the  Catholic  bishops  from  their 
sees,  and  committed  other  acts  of  a  schismatical  character, 
she  was   "  rightly  excommunicated"  by  the  Pope,  who  was 
at  that  time  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  Church  in  Eng- 
land, as  well  as  elsewhere.     And  this  excommunication  in- 
volved all  who  aided  and  supported  her  in  her  schism.     Now, 
according    to    your    article,   persons    thus    excommunicated, 
"  oiight  to  be  taken  of  the  whole  multitude  of  the  faithful  as 
an  Heathen  and  Publican,  until  openly  reconciled  by  penance 
and  received  into  the  Clnirch,  by  a  Judge  that  hath  authority 
thereto."      Were   Queen    Elizabeth    and    her    adherents   in 
schism,   ever  "openly  reconciled  by  penance  and  received 
into  the  Church,"   as  here  required?     You  know  they  were 
not.     Consequently,  they  lived  and  died   "cut  oft"  from  the 
unity  of  the  Church."     And  they  who  persist  in  the  schism 
■which  they  made,  are  necessarily  involved  in  the  same  pre- 
dicament.    It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Anglicanism,  and  your 
own  sect,  which  sprang  from  it,  are  both  self-condemned  by 
this  article. 

We  will  now  pass  to  the  thirty-fourth  article,  which  reads 
as  follows : 

25* 


288  LETTERS     TO    AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

"  It  is  not  necessary  that  traditions  and  ceremonies  be  in- 
all  places,  one  or  utterly  like  ;  for  at  all  times  they  have  been 
diverse,  and  may  be  changed  according  to  the  diversity  of 
countries,  times,  and  men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be 
ordained  against  God's  word.  Whosoever  through  his  pri- 
vate judgment  willingly  and  purposely  doth  openly  break  the 
traditions  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  which  be  not  repug- 
nant to  the  word  of  God.  and  be  ordained  and  approved  by 
common  authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly,  (that  other 
may  fear  to  do  the  like,)  as  he  that  ofFendeth  against  the 
common  order  of  the  Church,  and  hurteth  the  authority  of 
the  magistrate,  and  woundeth  the  consciences  of  weak  breth- 
ren. Every  particular  or  National  Church  hath  authority  to 
ordain,  change  and  abolish  ceremonies  or  rites  of  the  Church 
ordained  by  man's  authority,  so  that  all  things  be  done  to 
edifying." 

From  this  article  it  appears,  first,  that  although  your  con- 
troversialists may  find  it  convenient  to  oppose  traditions  in 
the  uaual  Protestant  style,  yet  traditions  are  plainly  recog- 
nised by  the  Prayer-Book ;  for  we  are  told,  in  this  article, 
that  the  man  who  breaks  tradition  in  the  exercise  of  "  his 
private  judgment,  desei'ves  to  be  openly  rebuked."  But  you 
will  say  that  these  traditions  must  not  be  ' '  repugnant  to 
God's  word."  To  this  I  answer,  that  every  Catholic  will 
agree  with  you.  The  Catholic  Chiux-h  does  not  hold  or  teach 
traditions  that  are  "  repugnant  to  God's  word."  You  may 
assert  that  her  traditions  are  "repugnant  to  God's  word." 
But  is  your  assertion  to  outweigh  her  interpretation  and  au- 
thority '?  Certainly  not.  The  traditions  of  the  Church  were 
broken  in  England  by  the  schism  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Eliza- 
beth, and  hence  the  authors  of  that  schism  are  condemned 
by  this  article  also. 

The  last  paragraph  of  the  article  contains  a  singular  declar 
ration .  It  says  :  ' '  Every  particular  or  National  Church  hath 
authority  to  ordain,  change  and  abolish  ceremonies  or  rites 
of  the  Church  ordained  by  man's  authority."  This  is  mani- 
festly erroneous.  Every  particular  Church  must  necessarily 
be  subordinate  to  the  whole  Church — the  Church  Universal. 
And  if  subordinate,  it  cannot  ordain  or  abolish  without  refer- 
ence to  the  usage  or  decision  of  the  Universal  or  Catholic 
Church.  This  is  obviously  the  dictate  of  reason  and  common 
sense.  The  inferior  must  yield  to  the  superior.  This  is  neces- 
sary to   the  order  and  harmony  of  the   Church.     The  same 


I-  E  T  T  E  11     X 


•289 


printiiile  is  cvidoiitly  laid  down  by  St.  Paul.  It  was  the 
cust^nu  in  the  primitive  Church,  for  women  to  appear  in  the 
liouse  of  God  with  veils  on  their  heads.  The  Apostle  insists 
on  the  observance  of  this  custom  by  the  Christians  of  Co- 
rinth, and  to  those  who  wished  to  practice  a  contrary  custom, 
he  cuts  off  all  discussion  by  the  decision,  "  But  if  any  man 
seem  to  be  contentious,  we  have  no  such  custom ;  neither 
the  Churches  of  God."  (1  Cor.,  xi.  16.)  Here  we  see  the 
particular  Church  of  Corinth  was  not  at  liberty  to  change  or 
abolish  a  custom  which  prevailed  in  the  Churches  generally. 

Your  next  article,  the  thirty-fifth,  contains  an  endorsement 
of  the  "  Homilies,"  which  I  have  repeatedly  quoted  in  the 
course  of  these  letters.  It  says:  "The  second  Book  of 
Homilies,  the  several  titles  whereof  we  have  joined  under  this 
article,  doth  contain  a  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine,  and 
necessary  for  these  times,  as  doth  the  former  Book  of  Homi- 
lies which  were  set  forth  in  the  time  of  Edward  the  Sixth ; 
and  therefore,  we  judge  them  to  be  read  in  Churches  by  the 
ministers,  diligently  and  distinctly,  that  they  may  be  under- 
standed  of  the  people." 

To  this  declaration,  your  American  Convention  appended 
a  note  suspending  the  order  for  the  public  reading  of  the 
Homilies,  "  imtil  a  revision  of  them  may  be  conveniently 
made,"  but  at  the  same  time  endorsing  the  Homilies  as  "  an 
explication  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  instructive  in  piety  and 
morals." 

In  the  course  of  these  letters  I  have  had  occasion  to  speak 
of  the  history  of  the  Homilies,  and  have  (quoted  from  them 
in  defence  of  the  Catholic  canon  of  the  Scriptures,  the  reli- 
gious benefits  of  celibacy,  and  soule  other  points.  As  these 
Homilies  arc  not  publicly  read  among  you,  they  are  but  little 
known  to  j-our  lay  members,  although  as  an  exposition  of  the 
doctrines  of  your  Chm-ch,  they  possess  almost  as  much  autho- 
rity as  the  Prayer-Book  itself,  as  is  evident  from  the  article 
just  quoted.  Some  of  them  are  instructive  and  edifying 
compositions.  In  others;  the  authors  tried  to  be  very  severe 
against  certain  Catholic  practices,  distorting  and  reviling 
them,  and  heaping  together  garbled  extracts  from  the  fathers, 
and  the  grossest  misrepresentations  and  calumnies.*     But  in 

•■■  As  spccimen.s,  let  me  here  mention  that  in  the  second  part  of  the 
Sermon  far  Whitsunday,  among  other  gross  folsehoods  alleged  against 
the  authority  of  the  Popes,  mention  is  made  of  the  exploded  fable  of 


290  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

many  respects,  the  teaching  of  the  Homilies  dififers  very  mate- 
rially from  what  is  proclaimed  now  from  most  of  your  pul- 
pits. And  I  am  sure  it  will  be  a  long  time  before  your 
Church  makes  that  talked  of  "revision,"  and  requires  her 
ministers  to  read  them  to  the  people.  They  are  at  variance, 
not  only  with  the  opinions  now  prevalent  among  you,  but 
also  with  the  doctrines  advanced  in  some  of  the  articles,  as  I 
have  already  shown.  It  would  be  easy  to  set  before  you  any 
amount  of  proof  in  support  of  this  assertion,  by  quoting  copi- 
ously from  their  pages ;  but  this  my  space  will  not  permit. 
But  I  cannot  forbear  to  cite  here,  one  or  two  passages  in 
confirmation  of  the  assertion.  If  the  members  of  your  Church 
do  not  exactly  deny  the  necessity  of  good  works,  yet  they 
deny  the  merit  and  saving  efficacy  of  good  works.  Now, 
hear  what  one  of  these  Homilies  says  as  to  the-  merit  and 
efficacy  of  "  alms-deeds,"  in  expounding  the  words  of  our 
Lord:  '■'■Give  «?ms,"  saith  he,  "and  heJwld  all  tilings  are 
cleaminto  ymi."  (^Luke  xi.  41.)  He  teacheth  them,  that  to 
be  merciful  and  charitable  in  helping  the  poor,  is  the  means 
to  keep  the  soul  pure  and  clean  in  the  sight  of  Grod.  We 
are  taught,  therefore,  by  this,  that  merciful  alms-dealing  is 
profitable  to  purge  the  soul  from  the  infection  and  filthy 
spots  of  sin.  The  same  lesson  doth  the  Holy  Ghost  also 
teach  in  sundry  places  of  the  Scripture,  saying,  "  Merciful- 
ness  and  alms-giving  purgeth  from  all  sins  and  delivereth 


"Pope  Joan  the  harlot !''  And  souie  of  the  later  fathers,  whose  en- 
tire submission  and  devotion  to  the  Holy  See,  cannot  be  questioned  by 
any  one  who  has  a  particle  of  regard  for  history,  are  actually  made  to 
disparage  the  authority  of  the  Popes,  among  them,  St.  Bernard,  of  the 
eleventh  century  ! 

Burnet's  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  Homilies  is  too  good  not 
to  be  quoted  here.  It  is  as  follows:  "At  the  time  of  the  Refor- 
mation, as  there  could  noi  be  found  a  suflicient  number  of  preach- 
ers to  instruct  the  whole  nation,  so  thpse  that  did  complj-  with  the 
changes  w"hich  were  then  made,  were  not  all  well  affected  to  them; 
so  that  it  was  not  safe  to  trust  this  matter  to  the  capacity  of  the  one 
side,  and  to  the  integrity  of  the  others  :  therefore,  to  supply  the  defects 
of  some,  and  to  oblige  the  rest  to  teach  according  to  the  form  of  sound 
doctrine,  there  were  two  Books  of  Homilies  prepared."  [Expos,  of 
Thirty-Nine  Art.— Art.  35.)  This  means,  in  plain  English,  that  the 
object  was  to  force  the  new-fangled  opinions  of  Craniner  down  the 
throats  of  a  reluctant  clergy  and  i)eoplc  ! 


L  E  T  T  E  11     X 


291 


from  death   and  snffcrcth    not  the   soid  to   come    into  dark- 
ness." (^Tobias  iv.  11.)* 

I  beg  you  to  notice,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  this  passage, 
your  Book  of  Homilies  asserts  that  the  Holy  Ghost  teaches 
us  by  the  book  of  Tobias.  And  yet  your  sixtli  article  ex- 
cludes that  book  from  the  sacred  canon  and  jilaces  it  among 
the  Apocrapha  !  In  the  second  place,  I  wish  you  to  notice 
that  tliis  passage  from  your  Homilies,  teaches  that  alnis-dceds 
are  not  only  meritorious,  but  that  they  "  purge  the  soul  from 
the  infection  and  filthy  spots  of  sin."  Now,  my  friend,  you 
well  know  that  tliis  doctrine  is  not  only  repudiated  among 
you,  but  denounced  as  the  A'cry  essence  of  Popery,  and  as 
utterly  opposed  to  the  "  gospel  plan  of  salvation  by  faith." 
Let  me  remind  you,  too,  that  this  doctrine  is  directly  at 
variance  with  your  eleventh  article,  which  asserts  "  that  we 
are  justified  ])y  faith  only;"  and  also  with  your  twelfth  ar- 
ticle, which  declares  that  good  works  "  cannot  put  away  our 
sins."  Here  are  palpable  and  glaring  contradictions,  such 
as  would  disgrace  any  system  of  human  philosophy,  much 
more  that  which  professes  to  be  a  body  of  Christian  science 
and  divine  truths. 

Let  me  now  give  you  another  specimen  of  these  contradic- 
tions. Your  twenty-fifth  article  declares  that,  "There  are 
two  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,"  and  that  "These  five,  Confirmation,  Penance,  Or- 
ders, ^latrimony ,  and  Extreme  TJnction,  are  not  to  be  counted 
for  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel."  And,  in  accordance  with 
this,  your  clergy  and  people  believe  that  there  are  but  two 
Sacraments,  and  reject  the  other  five,  including  that  of  Matri- 
mony. But  strange  as  it  may  seem,  your  Homilies  teach 
that  3Iatrimony  is  a  Sacrament  I  In  the  first  part  of  the  Ser- 
mon of  Sii-'caring,  you  may  read  as  follows  :  ' '  By  like  holy 
promise,  the  Sacrament  of  Matrimony  knitted  man  and  wife 
in  perpetual  love."  (^Tlomilics,  p.  64.)  Here  again  your 
Homilies  contradict  your  Prayer-Book  and  received  belief, 
and  bear  witness  on  the  Catholic  side. 

But  your  Homilies  not  only  thus  teach  that  Matrimony  is 
a  Sacrament,  but  they  also  ascribe  to  Baptism  and  the  Eucha- 
rist an  efiicacy  not  generally  allowed  among  you.  In  the  Ser- 
mon of  the  Passion  for  Good  Friday,  I  find  this  sentence 

*See  the  second  part  of  the  Sermon  of  Alms-deedi^,  in  the  Book  of 
Homilies.     Am.  edition,  p.  34G. 


292  LETTEllS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

concerning  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  :  ' '  Yea,  we  be  therefore 
u'ashed  in  our  Bcq^tism  from  the  filtliincss  of  sin,  that  we 
should  live  afterward  in  the  pureuess  of  life."  {Idem,  p. 
369.)  This  is  the  Catholic  doctrine  precisely;  but  you  know 
it  is  rejected  and  opposed  by  your  clergy  and  people.  This 
doctrine  is  at  variance  also  with  your  article,  which  asserts 
that  "  we  are  justified  by  faith  only" — for  if  Baptism  washes 
away  sin,  it  follows  that  Baptism  is  a  means  of  justification 
and  not  "faith  only."  In  regard  to  the  other  Sacrament,  I 
find  in  one  of  the  Homilies,  language  equally  strong  and  Ca- 
tholic— "  But  thus  much  we  must  be  sure  to  hold,  that  in  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord  there  is  no  vain  ceremony,  no  bare  sign, 
no  untrue  figure  of  a  thing  absent."  And,  after  fjuoting 
several  passages  of  Scripture  to  this  effect,  it  declares  that 
the  ' '  Ancient  Catholic  filth ers  were  not  afraid  to  call  this 
Supper,  some  of  them,  the  salve  of  immortality  and  sovereign 
preservative  against  death ;  others,  a  deifical  communion ; 
other,  the  sweet  dainties  of  our  Saviour,  the  pledge  of  eter- 
nal health,  the  defence  of  faith,  the  hope  of  the  resiu-rection  ; 
other,  the  food  of  immortality,  the  healthful  grace,  and  the 
conservatory  to  everlasting  life.  All  which  sayings,  both  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  and  godly  men,  truly  attributed  to  this 
celestial  banquet  and  feast,"  &c.  &c.  (First  jiart  of  the  Ser- 
mon concerning  the  Sacrament,  p.  398.)  Here  you  have 
language  concerning  this  Holy  Sacrament,  which  is  entirely 
consistent  with  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  the 
Beal  Presence  being  set  forth  in  the  strongest  and  most  empha- 
tic terms.  But  I  need  not  remind  jow  how  contrary  all  this 
is  to  the  low  ideas  which  prevail  among  you  upon  the  subject, 
according  to  which  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  mere  commemora- 
tion with  bread  and  wine — a  mere  emblematic  ceremony. 
You  do  not  think  of  calling  it  the  ' '  food  and  salve  of  immor- 
tality," or,  "the  preservative  against  death."  No,  my  friend, 
you  leave  such  ideas,  and  such  terms,  to  the  Papists.  But, 
you  see  now,  we  have  your  Homilies  with  us  in  this  matter 
too ;  and  what  is  infinitely  better  still,  we  have  the  "  ancient 
Cathohc  fathers"  with  us  also,  by  the  admission  of  your 
Homilies. 

I  might  proceed  to  show  that  the  Homilies  bear  witness  on 
the  Catholic  side,  and  against  your  Articles  and  Prayer-Book, 
and  your  received  doctrines,  on  various  other  points,  did  my 
!5pace  permit  it.     What  I  have  quoted  from  them  will  suffice  ; 


L  K  T  T  K  It     X  , 


293 


only  do  not  forget  that  your  article  endorses  the  Homilies, 
as  containing  a  "  godly  and  wliolcsomc  doctrine." 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  next  article,  which  reads  as  fol- 
lows:  "The  Book  of  Consecration  of  Bishops,  and  Ordering 
of  Priests  and  Deacons,  as  set  forth  by  the  General  Conven- 
tion of  this  Church,  in  1792,  doth  contain  all  things  neces- 
sary to  such  consecration  and  ordering ;  neither  hath  it  any- 
thing that  of  itself  is  superstitious  and  ungodly ;  and  there- 
fore, whosoever  arc  consecrated  or  ordered  according  to  said 
form,  we  decree  all  such  to  be  rightly,  orderly  and  law- 
fully consecrated  and  ordered." 

The  first  thing  to  be  observed  here,  is  a  considerable  devia- 
tion from  the  article  as  it  is  found  in  your  mother  Church  of 
England.  There,  the  first  part  of  it  reads  thus  :  "The  Book 
of  Consecration  of  Archbishops  and  Bishops,  and  Ordering 
of  Priests  and  Deacons,  lately  set  forth  in  the  "time  of  Edward 
YI.,  and  confirmed  at  the  same  time  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment, doth  contain."  kc.  Here  we  learn  the  origin  of  this 
book,  or  form  of  ordination,  and  that  it  received  its  confirma- 
tion from  the  civil  authority,  like  everything  else  belonging  to 
Anglicanism.  We  learn,  also,  that  provision  was  made  there- 
in for  the  Consecration  of  Archbishops ;  an  order  which  does 
not  exist  in  your  American  branch.  Now,  if  the  said  form 
"doth  contain  all  things  necessary"  to  a  valid  consecration, 
why  is  it  made  the  subject  of  a  special  article,  and  why  does 
that  article  conclude  by  magisterially  dccrecinr/  that  all  persons 
consecrated  according  to  that  form,  arc  lawfolly  and  rightly 
consecrated?  There  was  a  motive  for  tliis.  That  book  or 
form  was,  from  the  first,  objected  to  as  defective,  and  in  order 
to  silence  all  opposition,  the  aid  of  authority,  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical, was  invoked.  This  form  was  set  forth,  we  are  told, 
in  the  third  year  of  Edward,  that  is  in  1549.  The  articles  were 
not  adopted  until  15G2.  Thus,  the  form  had  been  in  use 
thirteen  years  when  the  article  was  first  passed.  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  ' '  a  decree"  could  make  a  defective  form  valid  at 
any  time,  and  much  less  thirteen  years  after  said  form  had 
commenced  to  be  used.  It  might  answer  for  any  mere  legal 
purpose,  but  could  not  supply  any  theological  defects.  That 
this  difliculty  was  the  cause  of  the  article  being  adopted,  is 
candidly  admitted  by  your  celebrated  expounder,  Bishop  Bur- 
net. In  his  observations  upon  this  very  article,  he  says : — 
' '  There  seems  to  be  here  insinuated  a  ratification  of  orders 
that  were   given  before  this  article  was  made ;  which  being 


294  LETTEKS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

■done,  as  the  lawyers  phrase  it^  ex  post-facto,  it  seems  these 
orders  were  imhxwful  when  given,  and  that  error  was  intended 
to  be  corrected  by  this  article."  After  this  admission,  Bur- 
net proceeds  to  give  his  explanation  of  the  difficulty.  He 
states  that  the  form  of  ordination  put  forth  under  Edward, 
was  abolished  under  Mary,  and  subsequently  under  Eliza- 
beth was  brought  again  into  use  without  being  expressly  re- 
stored by  authority.  This  may  do  very  well  as  to  the  legal 
difficulty  of  the  ease.  But  that  was  only  a  part,  and  the 
least  part  of  the  difficulty.  It  may  serve  to  account  for  the 
special  act  of  Parliament  which  was  passed  under  Elizabeth, 
for  the  purpose  of  sanctioning  the  use  of  Edward's  form  some 
time  after  its  use  had  been  commenced  :  but  it  docs  not  serve 
to  account  for  the  passing  of  the  article.  The  Articles  are 
doctrinal  and  theological  in  their  nature  and  scope,  and  their 
object  is  not  to  settle  legal  points.  There  was  a  theological 
difficulty  in  the  case,  and  the  Article  was  fi-arned  with  sjieeial 
reference  to  it.  This  much  may  be  gathered  from  the  very 
terms  of  the  article,  in  which  it  is  said  that  persons  so  order- 
ed are  not  only  "  lawfully,"  but  "orderly"  and  "rightly" 
ordained.  The  sufficiency  of  Edward's  ordinal  was  denied  by 
the  Catholics,  and  questioned  also,  no  doubt,  by  many  of  the 
older  clergy  who  conformed  to  the  changes  made  by  Eliza- 
beth, and  who  had  been  ordained  according  to  the  old  Catho- 
lic ritual.  And  the  design  of  the  Article  was  evidently  to 
put  a  stop  to  all  discussion  upon  this  point,  at  least  within  the 
pale  of  the  Establishment,  by  means  of  a  peremptory  decision 
to  which  all  the  clergj^  were  to  assent.  But  it  is  manifest 
that  however  effiictual  such  a  ' '  decree"  might  be  in  produc- 
ing silence,  and  even  a  unanimity  of  opinion  within  the  bor- 
ders of  Anglicanism,  it  was  utterly  inadequate  to  alter  the 
merits  of  the  question,  or  to  make  that  valid  which  was  by 
nature  invalid.  All  the  articles  and  decrees  that  could  be 
put  forth  by  the  xVnglican  authorities,  could  not  render  a 
spurious  ordination  a  genuine  one.* 

*  That  the  object  of  the  article  was  to  put  a  stop,  as  far  as  possible, 
to  all  questioning  and  disputation  upon  the  validity  of  Anglican  ordi- 
nations, is  further  evident  from  the  following  Canon  of  the  Church  of 
England  :  "Whosoever  shall  hereafter  affirm  or  teach,  that  the  form 
and  manner  of  making  and  consecrating  bishops,  priests  and  deacons, 
contaiueth  an3-thiug  in  it  that  is  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  or 
that  they  who  are  made  bishops,  priests  or  deacons,  in  that  form,  are 
not  lawfiiUv  made,  nor  ought  to  be  accounted,  either  bv  themselves 


].  K  T  T  K  U     X  .  295 

This  article,  you  perceive,  feriug.s  up  the  question  of  the 
validity  of  Anglican  ordinations,  and  a^  I  promised  in  a  pre- 
vious letter  to  make  some  remarks  upon  this  subject,  it  seems 
most  appropriate  to  do  it  here.  It  is  impossible,  however,  to 
discuss  the  subject  fully  within  the  narrow  limits  to  which  I 
am  confined.  All  I  can  do  is  simply  to  state  how  the  matter 
is  regarded  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  lay  before  you  the 
principal  grounds  upon  which  her  opinion  is  based.  You 
are,  of  course,  aware  of  the  fact,  that  this  (Question  involves 
tlie  validity  of  the  orders  of  your  own  Church  also,  since 
you  trace  your  orders  to  the  Anglican  Church.  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  matter  in  which  3-ou  are  deeply  concerned,  as  it  affects 
the  sufficiency  of  your  ministry  and  Sacraments.  The  Ca- 
tholic Chui'ch  has  always  regarded  and  treated  Anglican 
orders  as  null  and  void.  Whenever  an  Anglican  clergyman 
or  bishop  has  submittted  to  her  authority,  he  has  instantly 
taken  the  place  of  a  layman,  and  has  never  been  allowed  to 
perform  any  clerical  function  until  ordained  according  to  her 
I'itual.  You  must  not  suppose  that  this  results  simply  from 
her  considering  such  orders  as  conferred  in  schism,  for  she 
recognizes  the  orders  of  some  of  the  ancient  sects  in  the  East 
who  are  equally  in  schism,  and  admits  their  clergy  to  her 
altars  without  further  ordination.  When  Queen  Elizabeth 
ascended  the  throne,  she  drove  the  Catholic  prelates  from 
their  Sees,  as  I  have  already  related,  and  hence  it  became 
necessary  to  provide  other  bishops  for  those  Sees,  and  espe- 
cially one  for  the  primatial  See  of  Canterbury.  Dr.  Parker 
was  selected  by  the  Queen  as  the  new  Archbishop,  and  as  the 
fountain-head  of  the  xVnglican  Succession.  But  was  he  va- 
lidly consecrated?  According  to  the  decision  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  as  evinced  by  her  action,  he  was  not.  The  argu- 
ments urged  against  his  consecration  may  be  ranged  under 
two  heads.  1.  As  to  the  fact  of  his  consecration — whether 
he  ever  went  through  any  form  or  ceremony  of  consecration 
at  all.  '2.  As  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  form  or  ordinal  by 
which  it  is  alleged  he  was  consecrated.  The  former  point  is 
denied  upon  sundiy  historical  grounds,  the  chief  of  which  are, 
that  some  of  the  founders  of  Anglicanism,  as  Cranmer  and 


or  others,  to  be  truly  either  bishops,  priests  or  deacons,  until  tliey 
liave  some  other  calling  to  these  divine  offices,  let  him  be  excommuni- 
cated ipso  facto,  not  to  be  restored  until  he  repent,  and  publicly  re- 
voke such  his  wicked  errors."'     (  Canon  viii.) 

26 


296  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

Barlow,  entertained  the  opinion  tliat  the  appointment  of  the 
king  was  sufficient  to  constitute  a  bishop,  and  that  the  Catho- 
lic divines,  from  the  very  first,  openly  reproached  the  Angli- 
can bishops  with  the  charge  that  they  never  had  been  conse- 
crated at  all.  In  regard  to  the  other  point,  the  insufficiency 
of  the  form,  it  is  urged  that  this  form  was  not  only  different 
fi-om  that  anciently  used  in  the  English  Church,  but  wholly 
inadequate  to  express  and  convey  the  characteristics  and  attri- 
butes of  a  bishop.  Among  the  many  changes  made  in  the 
time  of  Edward  VI.,  the  old  form  of  the  Roman  Pontifical 
was  abolished,  and  a  new  ordinal  was  set  forth  for  the  ordi- 
nation of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons.  This  was  framed  ac- 
cording to  the  views  of  Cranmer,  and  of  course  difiiered  ma- 
terially fi-om  the  old  one*.  In  the  ordination  of  a  priest  it 
gave  him  no  power  to  offer  up  sacrifice,  in  which  consists  the 
very  essence  of  the  priesthood.  In  that  of  a  bishop,  it  gave 
him  no  additional  power,  and  failed  to  express  in  any  way 
the  episcopal  character  and  office.  In  short,  it  was  only  such 
as  might  have  been  used  in  setting  apart  any  religious  teach- 
er. This  ordinal  was  used  during  the  reign  of  Edward. 
Under  Queen  Mary,  those  of  the  clerical  order  who  had  been 
ordained  according  to  Edward's  ordinal,  were  not  allowed  to 
continue  in  the  ministry  until  such  things  had  been  supplied 
as  were  wanting  in  their  ordination,  and  Edward's  bishops 
were  deprived  of  their  Sees,  partly  on  account  of  the  nul- 
lity of  their  consecration.  These  undeniable  facts  show^,  that 
the  Catholic  authorities,  when  all  England  was  again  Catho- 
lic, regarded  Edward's  ordinal  as  essentially  defective.  But 
this  defective  ordinal,  as  I  have  already  stated,  was  afterwards 
restored  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  used  at  the  consecration  of 
her  first  Archbishop,  Dr.  Parker,  if  he  was  consecrated  at 
all.     The  words  used  in  that  service  at  the  time  of  laying  on 

*  To  prove  that  Cranmer' s  views  as  to  the  ministry  were  of  the  most 
radical  character,  it  is  sufficient  to  quote  the  following  passage  from 
Bishop  Short :  "He  (Cranmer)  seems  to  esteem  the  whole  of  the  cleri- 
cal office  as  dependent  entirely  on  the  civil  magistrate ;  that  there  was 
originally  no  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest ;  that  the  prince 
or  the  people  might  make  a  priest  for  themselves,  for  whom  no  conse- 
cration was  necessary."  {Hist,  of  Church  of  Erig.,  ^  33*7.)  In  these 
views,  Cranmer  was  followed  by  other  leading  divines  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Even  Hooker,  with  all  his  "sound  churchmanship,'' 
admitted  that  "There  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  rea- 
son to  allow  ordination  made  without  a  bishop."  {Eccl.  Polity.  B.YII. 
Chap,  xiv.) 


L  E  T  T  E  i;     X  . 


297 


of  hands,  were  simply  these:  "Take  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
remember  that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  of  (Jod  which  is  in 
thee,  by  the  imposition  of  hands;  for  Cod  hath  not  given  us 
the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power  and  of  love  and  of  soberness."* 
You  will  at  once  perceive  the  inadequacy  of  these  words  to 
convey  any  episcopal  authority  or  attribute.  They  might  be 
used  with  equal  propriety  in  the  ordination  of  a  mere  deacon. 
The  insufficiency  of  this  form  was  virtually  acknowledged  by 
the  Anglican  authorities  at  a  later  period.  The  Catholic  di- 
vines continued  to  attack  the  ordination  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  to  expose  the  imperfection  of  the  new  ordinal, 
until  at  length  the  Anglican  authorities  were  driven  to  the 
mortifying  expedient  of  adding  other  words  to  the  form 
in  order  to  supply  its  defects.  This  change  was  made  in  the 
year  1G62.  That  you  may  understand  this  matter  clearly,  I 
will  place  the  two  forms  in  parallel  columns. 


BEFORE   THE    CHANGE: 

'  •  Take  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  re- 
member that  thou  stir  up  the 
frracc  of  God.  which  is  in  thee  by 
imposition  of  hands ;  for  God 
hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of 
fear,  but  of  power,  and  love,  and 
of  soberness." 


AFTER    THE     CHANGE: 

"Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for 
the  ofjlce  and  icork  of  a  bishop  in 
the  Vhitrch  of  God,  noic  committed 
unto  thee  hi/  the  imposition  of  our 
hands  ;  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Sou,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. — Amen.  And  remember 
that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  of  God 
which  is  given  thee  by  this  impo- 
sition of  our  hands  :  for  God  hath 
not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but 
of  power,  and  love  and  soberness.' ' 

Above  you  have,  first,  the  form  as  it  was  used  at  the  alleg- 
ed consecration  of  Parker  and  others;  and  then,  the  form  as 
it  was  subsequently  amended,  by  the  insertion  of  the  words 
which  I  have  placed  in  Italics.  The  latter  is  as  clear,  precise 
and  full,  as  the  former  is  vague  and  imperfect. |    The  making 


*See  the  work  already  referred  to.  Dr.  CardwelVs  Two  Books  of 
Edward  Compared,  containing  only  this  short  form. 

t  If  you  desire  Protestant  authority  for  this  change,  allow  me  to  re- 
fer j'ou  to  a  little  work  by  the  Hon.  and  Rev.  A.  P.  Percival,  an  An- 
glican clergyman,  in  which  you  will  find  an  appendix  containing  the 
ofifices  used  at  ordinations  in  England  before  and  after  the  reign  of 
Edward  YI. 

I  would  add  that  other  changes  were  made  in  the  ordination  service 
in  1662.  The  following  cjuestion  was  added  to  those  put  to  the  bishop 
elect,  •'Will  vou  be  faithful  in  ordaining,  sending,  or  laving  hands 


298  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

of  this  change  was  a  phiin  admission,  that  the  original  fornt. 
Tvas  imperfect  and  inadequate.  Otherwise,  why  was  the 
change  made  ?  why  were  so  many  additional  words  inserted  ? 
The  original  form  had  been  used  during  the  reign  of  Edward 
VI.,  Elizabeth,  James  I.  and  Charles  I.,  that  is,  for  more 
than  a  century.  Why  alter  it,  and  insert  the  very  terms 
which  the  Catholic  divines  said  it  needed,  if  it  was  not  really 
defective?  But,  after  all,  the  change  did  not  remedy  the 
evil.  It  came  too  late.  The  Anglican  prelates,  for  several 
generations,  had  been  ordained  with  the  defective  form,  and 
they  could  not  give  to  their  successors  any  more  than  they 
had  themselves  received,  even  though  they  used  additional' 
words.  A  man  whose  consecration  has  been  invalid,  cannot 
give  a  valid  consecration  to  another,  no  matter  how  perfect 
may  be  the  form  or  ordinal  which  he  uses.  Such  was  and 
such  is  the  condition  of  the  Anglican  Succession,  and  also  of 
the  Episcopalian  Succession  in  this  country. 

I  have  now  briefly  stated  the  grounds  upon  which  the  Ca- 
tholic Church  has,  from  the  beginning,  treated  your  orders  as 
invalid  and  null.  Her  testimony  alone  ought  to  have  great 
weight  in  such  a  matter,  especially  with  those  who  hold  the 
theory  that  she  is  a  part  (and  of  course  the  greater  part)  of 
the  "Universal  Church."  If  the  reasons  urged  against  your 
orders  should  not  amount,  in  your  estimation,  to  a  demonstra- 
tion, they  must  at  least  serve  to  bring  your  orders  into  very 
grave  doubt.  And,  in  a  question  of  this  sort,  you  require 
certainty.  Doubtful  orders  necessarily  produce  doubtful  Sac- 
raments, and  a  doubtful  ministry,  and  a  doubtful  Church.  To 
participate  in  such  things  when  doubtful,  is  not  only  highly 
unsatisfactory,  but  imprudent  and  rash,  since  it  involves  the 
soul's  salvation  in  doubt,  and  moreover,  exposes  one  to  the- 
heinous  sin  of  sacrilege.  But,  great  as  the  difficulty  is  con- 
cerning your  orders,  it  is  not  the  only  one  affecting  the  law- 
fulness of  your  ministry.  If  yoiu*  bishops  and  clergy  were 
validly  ordained,  they  are  destitute  of  lawful  mission  or  juris- 
diction. This  point  I  have  proved  in  a  previous  letter.  In 
connection  with  this  subject,  let  me  remind  you  of  Bishop 
Burnet's  admission,  already  quoted.     Speaking  of  the  authors- 


upon  others  ?' '  In  the  form  of  ordaining  a  priest,  the  following  clanse 
was  inserted  in  order  to  make  it  definite  and  appropriate,  "for  the 
office  and  work  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto 
thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands." 


L  E  T  T  E  a    X  .  ^  299 

of  the  Articles,  he  says  :  "  They  knew  that  all  things  among 
themselves  had  not  gone  according  to  those  rules  that  ought 
to  be  saci'cd  in  regular  times." 

As  the  three  remaining  Articles  are  unexceptionable  in 
doctrine  and  language,  it  is  not  necessary  to  examine  them, 
and  I  shall  now  conclude  my  observations  upon  this  portion 
of  your  Prayer-Book. 

The  next  division  of  the  Praycr-Book  consists  of  the  ordi- 
nation services  or  offices.  Although  these  offices  differ  in 
several  material  points  fi-om  the  Catholic  Pontifical,  yet  they 
were  borrowed  in  a  great  measure,  like  other  portions  of  your 
Prayer-Book,  from  Catholic  sources.  This  is  admitted  by 
Bishop  Short,  who  says  of  the  "  ordination  service  :"  "  Its 
several  parts  are  taken  from  that  in  use  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  with  the  omission  of  certain  ceremonious  observances, 
and  the  insertion  of  most  of  the  questions  proposed  to  the 
candidates."  (Hist,  of  Ch.  of  Eng.  §  744.)  Its  omissions, 
however,  go  much  further  than  Short  here  states,  as  I  have 
shewn  in  my  preceding  remarks.  As  these  points,  as  well  as 
the  general  subject  of  orders,  have  already  been  discussed  as 
far  as  my  limits  allow,  I  shall  not  dwell  upon  this  portion  of 
your  Prayer-Book. 

There  remain  but  two  more  offices  in  the  American  Prayer- 
Book,  one  for  the  "Consecration  of  a  Church,"  and  the 
other  for  the  ' '  Institution  of  Ministers  into  Parishes."  I  find 
nothing  in  them  worthy  of  special  attention,  unless  it  be  a 
pra^'er  in  the  latter  service,  which  commences  thus:  "  O, 
Holy  Jesus,  who  hast  purchased  to  thyself  an  Universal 
Church,  and  hast  promised  to  be  with  the  Ministers  of  Ajws- 
tolic  Succession  to  the  end  of  the  world,"  &c.  Here  is  a 
recognition,  not  only  of  the  doctrine  of  an  Universal  or  Ca- 
tholic Church,  but  also  of  the  Catholic  principle,  that  the 
presence  of  Christ  is  promised  to  the  ministers  of  Apostolic 
Succession.  The  reality  and  importance  of  these  truths  being 
admitted  among  you,  it  is  a  question  worthy  of  your  serious 
consideration,  whether  you  are  actually  in  that  Church,  and 
truly  possess  that  succession. 

I  find  in  the  English  Prayer-Book,  four  other  offices  or 
services  which  have  been  left  out  by  your  American  revisers, 
owing,  I  suppose,  to  their  having  special  reference  to  the  En- 
glish nation  and  monarchy.  They  are  worthy  of  at  least 
a  passing  notice  here,  as  indicative  of  the  peculiar  mind  and 
character  of  Anslicanism.  The  first  of  these  services  is  en- 
26* 


300  LETTERS     TO    AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 

titled,  "  A  form  of  Prwjer,  with  Tlianhsgiving ,  to  he  used 
yearly  ujjon  the  Fifth  Day  of  November,  for  the  happy  deli- 
verance of  King  James  I.  and  the  three  estates  of  England, 
from  the  most  traitorous  and  hloody -intended  massacre  hy 
Gunjyowder.^'  This  service  is  intended  to  commemorate  the 
Gunpowder  Plot  of  Guy  Fawkes.  The  Fifth  of  November 
was  made  a  holyday  by  the  act  of  parliament,  and  it  is  still 
observed,  and  is  commonly  called  Guy  Fawkes'  Day.  In 
one  of  the  prayers  contained  in  the  service,  the  plot  of  Guy 
Fawkes  is  referred  to  as  an  act  of  "  Popish  treachery,"  and 
in  another  as  the  "  secret  contrivance  and  hellish  malice  of 
Popish  conspirators."  Such  language  is  not  only  in  very 
bad  taste  in  a  formulary  of  worship,  but  it  conveys  a  false 
and  slanderous  imputation.  It  is  intended  to  create  the 
impression  that  the  plot  was  the  offspring  of  the  Catholic 
religion.  Let  us,  therefore,  take  a  glance  at  the  history  of 
this  affair.  It  appears,  that  in  the  second  year  of  James  I.. 
some  thirteen  persons  entered  into  a  plot  to  blow  up  the  king 
and  parliament  by  means  of  gunpowder.  At  the  head  of  the 
conspirators  was  Ptobert  Catesby,  an  English  gentleman,  and 
Guy  Fawkes  was  the  principal  instrument.  It  is  true  the 
parties  engaged  in  the  plot  were  Catholics,  but  it  does  not 
follow  from  that  fact  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  to  be  charged 
with  the  conspiracy,  any  more  than  that  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion is  to  be  charged  with  any  unlawful  scheme  devised  by  a 
dozen  of  Protestants.  The  Catholic  Church  was  in  no  way 
a  participator  in  the  plot.  Two  or  three  priests  were  accused 
of  being  privy  to  it,  one  of  whom  was  executed  as  an  acces- 
sory to  it.  But  they  wei'e  all  innocent  of  any  agency  in  the 
affair.  That  the  Church  was  not  responsible  for  the  conspi- 
racy, I  maintain,  because:  1.  Her  authorities  were  not  in 
the  plot.  2.  The  Catholics,  generally,  even  in  England, 
were  not  in  the  plot,  but  only  thirteen  of  them,  all  of  whom 
except  two  or  three,  were  obscure  persons.  3.  The  plot  was 
defeated  by  the  agency  of  a  Catholic,  who,  having  become  ac- 
quainted with  it,  made  it  known  to  the  government.  But  in 
order  to  make  this  point  still  more  evident,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  enable  you  to  form  a  proper  estimate  of  the  moral 
character  of  the  conspiracy,  it  is  necessary  to  call  to  mind  the 
circumstances  in  which  the  Catholics  were  then  placed.  In 
the  course  of  these  letters,  I  have  had  occasion  to  speak  of 
the  bloody  persecutions  waged  against  the  Catholics,  under 
Henry,  Edward,  and  more  particularly,  under  Elizabeth.     By 


LETTER    X.  301 

tbe  penal  laws  enacted  against  them,  thoso  who  were  not 
executed  on  the  scaffold,  or  sent  to  i"ot  in  a  foul  prison,  were 
robbed  of  their  lands  and  estates  by  means  of  incessant  fines, 
reducing  the  mass  of  them  to  a  state  bordering  upon  starva- 
tion and  beggary.  Such  was  their  condition  at  the  accession 
of  James  I.  This  monarch  had  promised  to  alleviate  their 
wretched  condition,  by  some  mitigation  of  the  bloody  penal 
code  of  the  land.  But  instead  of  so  doing,  still  greater  seve- 
rity was  used  towards  them,  and  nothing  was  left  them  but 
despair.  In  the  midst  of  such  hopeless  cruelty  and  oppres- 
sion, it  is  surely  not  surprising  that  a  few  of  these  wretched 
beings  should  look  around  for  some  expedient  by  which  to 
deliver  themselves  from  their  sanguinary  oppressors,  and 
recover  those  equal  rights  and  liberties  of  which  they  had 
been  forcibly  deprived — it  is  not  surprising  that  some  of  these 
wretched  beings,  rendered  desperate  by  their  abject  and  for- 
lorn condition,  finding  no  other  plan,  should  be  driven  to  the 
horrible  plot  of  blowing  up  the  tyrant  and  his  minions,  even 
at  the  risk  of  their  own  lives.  I  do  not  undertake  to  justify 
the  conspiracy ;  but  surely  there  was,  in  these  circumstances, 
a  strong  jii'oi'ocat ion ,  which  serves  to  mitigate  our  condemna- 
tion of  it.  That  Protestants,  if  similarly  situated,  would 
have  been  impelled  to  a  similar  plot,  I  have  no  doubt.  In- 
deed, history  teaches  us  that  they  have  resorted  to  such  means 
when  under  much  less  provocation.  This  very  same  king 
James  was  near  being  blown  up,  together  with  his  attendants, 
by  the  Protestant  burghers  of  Perth.  And  in  the  country 
of  the  Netherlands,  the  Protestants  formed  a  plot  to  blow  up 
their  Governor,  the  Prince  of  Parma,  with  all  the  nobility 
and  magistrates,  when  assembled  in  the  city  of  Antwerp. 

Let  me  now  proceed  to  notice  the  next  service  contained  in 
the  English  Prayer-Book,  which  is  called  A  Form  of  Prayer 
icith  Fasting,  to  he  used  yearly  on  the  thirteenth  of  January, 
hcing  the  day  of  the  Martyrdom  of  the  Blessed  King  Charles 
1.  To  implore  the  mercy  of  God,  that  neither  the  guilt  of 
that  sacred  and  innocent  Mood,  dr.,  dr.  From  this  extra- 
ordinary title,  the  nature  and  object  of  this  strange  religious 
service,  are  sufficiently  evident.  It  is  nothing  less  than  a 
beatification  of  King  Charles  I.,  and  a  mark  of  the  special 
veneration  which  Anglicanism  pays  to  monarchy  and  t") 
royal  blood.  In  a  previous  letter,  when  speaking  of  the  Cal- 
endar of  the  English  Prayer-Book,  I  showed  you  that  all  the 
saints  and  martyrs  mentioned  therein  lived  before  the  days  of 


302  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN 

Henry  VIII.,  except  one — and  that  one  was  King  Charles. 
After  the  lapse  of  nearly  a  century  and  a  half,  Anglicanism 
found  one  saint  and  martyr  among  her  children,  and  Parlia- 
ment passed  an  act  requiring  the  day  of  his  death  to  be  kept 
holy.  And  a  special  service  was  drawn  up  for  that  occasion, 
and  approved  by  the  Convocation,  as  Bishop  Short  informs 
us,  in  1661.  {Hist,  of  Cli.  of  Eng.,  §  750.)  King  Charles' 
name  was  thus  enrolled  in  the  Calendar  as  a  martyr,  and 
a  ser\dce  instituted  in  which  he  is  pronounced  "blessed," 
and  his  "blood  sacred,"  that  is,  in  which  he  was  canonized 
as  tlie  Anglican  saint — for  remember,  he  is  the  only  one 
•which  has  yet  been  found  worthy  of  that  honor  in  the  Church 
of  England  during  the  three  centuries  of  her  existence.  It 
is  certainly  no  credit  to  her,  that  in  this  only  attempt  to  exer- 
cise the  power  of  canonization,  she  should  have  pitched 
upon  one  so  unworthy  of  the  honor.  It  is  only  another  proof, 
however,  of  her  intense  and  servile  devotion  to  kings  and 
king-craft.  Every  reader  of  English  history  knows,  that 
Charles  was  put  to  death  by  the  Puritans  as  a  tyrant.  And, 
whatever  may  be  said  about  the  injustice  of  the  act,  it  was 
not  half  as  atrocious  as  the  execution  of  More  and  Fisher  by 
Henry  VIH.,  or  that  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  by  the  blood- 
stained Elizabeth.  The  political  revolution  under  Cromwell, 
was  but  the  natural  sequel  to  the  ecclesiastical  revolution  com- 
menced by  Henry  VHI.  Bishop  Short  himself  seems  to  ad- 
mit, that  Charles  was  not  entitled  to  the  epithet  of  "  martyr." 
"It  is,  perhaps,  unfortunate,"  he  says,  "that  this  appella- 
tion should  ever  have  been  affixed  by  authority."  {Idem,  § 
597,  note.')  In  the  same  note  this  historian  laments  that  this 
ser^dce,  as  well  as  that  for  Guy  Fawkes'  Day,  has  not  been 
abolished  by  law  I 

Of  the  two  remaining  services,  the  first  has  reference  to  the 
Restoration  of  the  Royal  Family,  and  the  reign  of  Charles 
II.  ;  and  the  second  is  a  commemoration  of  the  accession 
to  the  throne  of  "  our  Sovereign  Lord,  King  George."  They 
are  both  replete  with  disgusting  adulation  to  royalty,  and  seem 
to  have  been  framed,  not  only  on  the  principle  of  the  "  divine 
right  of  kings,"  but  that  the  Church  too,  was  created  for  the 
special  purpose  of  serving  and  supporting  crowned  heads. 
The  fathers  of  our  American  Revolution  do  not  appear  to 
have  shared  in  these  feelings  of  veneration  for  ' '  Lord  King 
George."  But  Anglicanism  owes  its  origin  and  existence  to 
crowned  despots,  and  it  is  natural  that  it  should  be  grateful. 


L  K  T  T  E  U     X  .  'J^'^ 


In  the  com-se  of  these  letters,  I  have  had  occasion  to  set  be- 
fore you  many  evidences  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
rei^nins  monarch  over  the  doctrine,  disciphne  and  worship 
of  the  ' '  Church  of  Eughind."  In  the  services  just  spccihed 
YOU  have  additional  proof  of  this  fact,  but  still  more  in  a  sort 
of  royal  proclamation  appended  to  said  services,  and  which 
constitutes  the  grand  finale  of  the  English  Prayer-Book  1 
shall  copy  a  part  of  it  for  your  edification.  It  reads  as  fol- 
lows : 

GEORGE  R. 
'•  Our  wiU  and  pleasiu-e  is  that  these  four  Forms  of  Prayer 
"and  Service,  made  for  the  fifth  of  November,  the  thirtieth 
"  of  January,  the  twenty-ninth  of  May,  and  the  twenty-htth 
'<  of  October,  be  forthwith  printed  and  published,  and  annex- 
"  ed  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Liturgy  of  the  Chmch 
"  of  England,  to  be  used  yearly  on  the  said  days,    cV'c. 

Such  was  the  mandate  of  George  Rex,  that  is.  King  George 
in  <^iven  in  1761.  It  shows  plainly  that  the  royal  author- 
ity Wc%s  supreme  over  the  Church  as  well  as  the  State,  over 
the  Prayer-Book,  no  less  than  over  the  civd  code.  - 

With  the  preceding  observations  I  thought  I  had  concluded 
my  examination  of  the  contents  of  the  Prayer-Book  but  in 
an  old  edition  of  it,  printed  at  Oxford  m  1-21  I  find  yet 
another  service,  which  is  quite  a  literary  and  theological  curi- 
osUy  It  is  entitled,  "At  the  Healing."  It  was  used  when 
sick  persons  were  pre.sented  to  Ae  king,  to  be  miraculously 
cured  of  their  diseases.  It  consists  of  a  Collect,  Gospel,  the 
Pater  Noster,  and  various  prayers  and  responses.  _  1  find  in 
it  the  following  rubrical  direction  :  Then  shall  the  infirm  per- 
sons, one  hy  one,  he  presented  to  the  Idng  upon  their  knees,  and 
as  ^very  one  is  presented,  and  irhile  the  king  rs  laying  Ms 
hands  vpon  them,  and  putting  the  gold  about  their  necks,  the 
chaplain  that  officiates,  turning  himself  to  his  majesty,  shall 
say  these  words  folloicing  .•  "  God  give  a  blessing  to  this  work, 

*■  Recent  advices  from  England  contain  the  intelligence  that  Queen 
VictShasKiied  a  mandate,  forhidding  in  future  the  use  of  the  ser- 
vices for  ''Gu^^^^^^^^^^  of  Char  es  I.,'  and  "Res- 
oration  of  Chines  II.'  This  exercise  of  vov,ev  is  an  mdisputab  e 
proot  th't  her  supremacy  over  the  Anglican  Church  .s  not  an  empts 
title,  or  obsolete  prerogative. 


304  LETTERS     TO     AN     EPISCOPALIAN. 

and  grant  that  these  sick  persons,  on  whom  the  kmg  hxys  his 
hands,  may  recover,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

From  this  service,  it  appears  that  Anglicanism  ascribed  the 
power  of  working  miracles  to  the  king,  even  as  late  as  the 
last  century.  Whether  he  was  supposed  to  enjoy  this  gift  by 
virtue  of  his  crown,  or  by  virtue  of  his  headship  over  that 
<!hurch,  we  are  not  informed.  But,  it  is  another  proof  of 
the  extravagant  prerogatives  with  which  Anglicanism  invests 
royalty,  and  it  deserves  also  the  special  attention  of  certain 
Episcopalians  who  ridicule  the  idea  of  "  modern  miracles." 

A.  B. 


CONCLUSION. 

I  have  already  protracted  these  letters  far  hcyond  my  ori- 
ginal intention,  and  it  is  now  tune  to  bring  them  to  a  close. 
Let  us,  therefore,  in  conclusion,  take  a  brief  review  of  the 
principal  points  which  have  been  proved. 

I  have  shown  you,  by  indisputable  evidence,  that  the 
' '  Church  of  England"  was  originally  constituted  by  the 
civil  authorities,  the  king  and  parliament :  that  by  the  same 
authorities,  with  the  aid  of  fire  and  sword,  the  Catholic  liturgy 
was  abolished  and  your  ' '  Book  of  Common-Prayer"  forced 
upon  the  clergy  and  people.  I  have  also  shewn  you  that 
this  Prayer-Book  was  compiled,  as  to  its  commendable  por- 
tions, from  the  3Iissal,  Breviary  and  other  Catholic  sources, 
and  consequently  that  the  praises  which  your  writers  and 
preachers  lavishly  bestow  upon  it,  are  justly  due,  not  to  the 
so-called  "Reformers,"  but  to  the  Catholic  and  Roman 
Church.  I  have  likewise  shewn  you  that  your  Prayer-Book 
has  undergone  sundry  revisions  at  different  periods  of  its 
history,  that  alterations  and  additions  and  omissions  were 
made,  involving  the  most  palpable  doctrinal  inconsistencies 
and  contradictions — that  it  was  at  one  time,  that  is  at  the 
accession  of  Queen  ^lary,  utterly  discarded  and  repudiated  by 
the  highest  authorities  in  Church  and  State,  who  all  united 
in  declaring  their  sincere  repentance  for  having  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  it ;  Cranmer  himself,  recanting  his  Protest- 
ant opinions,  and  that  the  doctrinal  changes  thus  made  from 
time  to  time,  prove  conclusively,  that  the  authors  and  sup- 
porters of  Anglicanism  were  destitute  of  any  fixed  and  uni- 
form belief,  and  consequently  incapable  of  setting  up  a  relia- 
ble standard  for  the  guidance  of  others — that  the  sweeping 
alterations  made  by  your  American  revisers,  particularly  in 
discarding  the  form  of  Absolution  in  the  Visitation  of  the 
Sick,  and  the  Athanasian  Creed,  place  the  daughter  at  vari- 
ance with  the  mother,  and  necessarily  deprive  your  Church 
of  all  claims  to  the  confidence  and  obedience  of  the  people. 
While,   then,  the    orthodox  and  sublime  portions  of  your 

(  30.-.) 


306  CONCLUSION. 

Prayer-Book,  and  its  salutary  round  of  festivals  and  fasts  and 
Saints'  days,  borrowed  from  the  Missal  and  Breviary,  should 
naturally  draw  your  heart  to  your  true  Mother,  the  CathoUc 
Church,  from  which  you  have  been  separated  by  the  act  of 
your  forefathers ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  essential  defects  of 
this  Prayer-Book,  together  with  the  errors  and  doctrinal 
contradictions  by  which  it  is  now  marred,  must  convince  you 
that  its  compilei'S  were  very  unsafe  guides. 

With  these  remarks,  I  leave  the  subject  to  your  serious 
reflection,  hoping  that  you  will  have  the  courage  to  co-operate 
with  the  grace  of  Grod,  and  to  embrace  the  truth,  regardless 
of  the  worldly  sacrifices  it  may  cost  you. 

Your  sincere  friend, 

AUaUSTIN  BEDE. 


iiiirt 


ill 


mm 


m 


' "i 


o,cal  Semmary-Speer  Ljb-ary 


1   1012  01022  0012 


■if"™* 


